# Which Socionics Intertype Relation?



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

There is an odd dynamic between a friend of mine and myself. It's like we can not see each others point of view. We can be agreeing, yet still be talking right past one another. It's really odd because after an extend period of time I'm left feeling stressed and warn out (an can't quite pinpoint why).

It seems our understanding of things are completely different so when communicating he does not get what I mean, and vice versa. It's really quite comical at times.

An excerpt of our communication:

* *





Him: Here is the picture of the first one
Me: No that's the final one
Him: huh? but the numbers a different.
Me: yes, because I made a mistake. This is exactly the same as the final one in every other aspect.
Him: Ok so we need the picture of the first one.
Me: I have told I you I don't have it, I saved over it. We have to use this other picture which isn't quite right but it'll have to do.
Him: So this one?
Me: yes
Him: but it's not right, it doesn't show the thing
Me: yes I know
Him: We need the picture with the thing
Me: I know, however we don't have it because I saved over it. I was in a rush not thinking about saving it.
Him: ok so we use this one
Me: no, that's the same as the final one
Him: But it's not, the numbers are different
...
and we just keep going around in circles -.-




I feel like a lot of the time I am explaining, an re-explaining, and triple explaining what it is we are supposed to do and why we are doing it. and the message just isn't getting across.
It's ok. I need to take a step back, change tact. Maybe we just aren't listening well enough to each other.

I'm wondering if this oddity in my life could be explained by the Socionics intertype relations.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Probably.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Not sure. In my experience, it doesn't seem miscommunication is caused by intertype relations. It seems intertype relations are about values, and how we relate to other people's values based on our own. Miscommunication can be caused by alot of things, perhaps this can be explained by socionics but its hard to tell what causes this type of things in a vacuum. I mean, I don't know much else about your freindship.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Ksara said:


> There is an odd dynamic between a friend of mine and myself. It's like we can not see each others point of view. We can be agreeing, yet still be talking right past one another. It's really odd because after an extend period of time I'm left feeling stressed and warn out (an can't quite pinpoint why).
> 
> It seems our understanding of things are completely different so when communicating he does not get what I mean, and vice versa. It's really quite comical at times.
> 
> ...


That excerpt is hilarious.

Maybe Relation of Extinguishment?


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> That excerpt is hilarious.
> 
> Maybe Relation of Extinguishment?


Yeah, gets better, after 10 minutes of this another friend pipes up "it doesn't really matter"
The whole thing was pointless haha.

Maybe. I'll have a look at that one


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Typhon said:


> Not sure. In my experience, it doesn't seem miscommunication is caused by intertype relations. It seems intertype relations are about values, and how we relate to other people's values based on our own. Miscommunication can be caused by alot of things, perhaps this can be explained by socionics but its hard to tell what causes this type of things in a vacuum. I mean, I don't know much else about your freindship.


Thanks.
You make a fair point. I really need to take a step back and employ more active listening. Maybe one of us just isn't taking the time to listen.

As for different values i'll have to think about that one. I do know there is a big difference with between how we comprehend things. He is a follow the recipe step by steps exactly guy, I'm more I see cake! We seem to start at opposite ends with things and rather than meet in the middle we keep sailing past each other.


----------



## Telepathis Goosus (Mar 28, 2015)

I'm still a bit unsure if I want to go along with the inter type relations.

I mean...socionics relations state clearly that I would be quite romantically compatible with a LSE, and the one LSE I ever attempted to date was not a horrible person by any means, but he was far too different from me and we did not get along well.

However, I would say that the idea that certain types often not being able to interact with each other well due to their typing is a common occurrence. Your relationship with your friend definitely could be a result of this, but it seems more likely you're having miscommunications over anything else.

I would stray from putting too much value on the accuracy of socionics type relations, it's only a hypothesis after all with no scientific backup per se.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Telepathis Goosus said:


> I'm still a bit unsure if I want to go along with the inter type relations.
> 
> I mean...socionics relations state clearly that I would be quite romantically compatible with a LSE, and the one LSE I ever attempted to date was not a horrible person by any means, but he was far too different from me and we did not get along well.
> 
> ...


The relations are the core of socionics, though? The functions just explain the reason for the relations existence.


----------



## Telepathis Goosus (Mar 28, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> The relations are the core of socionics, though? The functions just explain the reason for the relations existence.


Ah, true.

I think they do play a role, but their importance is only as prevalent as you decide for it to be. 

One of my best friends is an IEI. Some of the said illusionary aspects between EII and ILI are noticeable, but for the most part we get along amazingly.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Telepathis Goosus said:


> Ah, true.
> 
> I think they do play a role, but their importance is only as prevalent as you decide for it to be.
> 
> One of my best friends is an IEI. Some of the said illusionary aspects between EII and ILI are noticeable, but for the most part we get along amazingly.


EIIs to IEI is fairly easy. Both have 4D Fi and Ni, which both, of course, play a huge role in "relations." Also, since they are just inverses over the conscious and unconscious block, if the desire is there, lowering the gap between your blocks can make the bridge between the types fairly smooth.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Ksara said:


> Thanks.
> You make a fair point. I really need to take a step back and employ more active listening. Maybe one of us just isn't taking the time to listen.
> 
> As for different values i'll have to think about that one. I do know there is a big difference with between how we comprehend things. He is a follow the recipe step by steps exactly guy, I'm more I see cake! We seem to start at opposite ends with things and rather than meet in the middle we keep sailing past each other.


Did I? I made a point about one of you having to be a better listener? Where? I'm just a little confused as I don't understand how you could get that out of my post directly, lol. 

Remember that its not necessarily you who isn't listening. Maybe he is the one who isn't. Now I don't know what exatcly the problem is here. But bear in mind both need to listen if communication is to succeed! If you listen but he doesn't it will only frustrate you in the end.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Typhon said:


> Did I? I made a point about one of you having to be a better listener? Where? I'm just a little confused as I don't understand how you could get that out of my post directly, lol.
> 
> Remember that its not necessarily you who isn't listening. Maybe he is the one who isn't. Now I don't know what exatcly the problem is here. But bear in mind both need to listen if communication is to succeed! If you listen but he doesn't it will only frustrate you in the end.


Proper information exchange happens when one recognizes that every question is an answer and every answer is a question, a preexisting condition to determine the presence of unilateral information exchange between information of the lower tier of actuality. This paragraph is a question to have information supplied.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Typhon said:


> Did I? I made a point about one of you having to be a better listener? Where? I'm just a little confused as I don't understand how you could get that out of my post directly, lol.


I was affirming what you had said and that. I thought the point was that this may be a communication issue not necessarily a socionics relational thing haha.

Well I wouldn't put it past myself to have just invented a point for you 



> Remember that its not necessarily you who isn't listening. Maybe he is the one who isn't. Now I don't know what exatcly the problem is here. But bear in mind both need to listen if communication is to succeed! If you listen but he doesn't it will only frustrate you in the end.


Aye, but it is still good practice to practice active listening, pay attention to the interaction and identify how I could better communicate to him. I know that I am much more focused on the idea that comes to mind rather than the how it is communicated or received by another.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I'm starting to think that certain intertype interactions involve so much dissonance that a relative amount of entropy during every interaction is impossible to avoid.

Basically, the fact is that different types process information differently, and there is nothing you can do about it except be aware of this so that you can recognize when it happens and just redirect your energy elsewhere instead of banging your head against the wall trying to force things. There's seriously nothing you can do. If you refuse to give up, it will only end in frustration and resentment, but if you let it go and move on to something else, chances are you can avoid making it personal.

If anything, this is what I gained from studying socionics. I can recognize the fact that people process information differently _in practice_, and the function + block cognitive model of socionics serves as an explanation for this. Although, on that note, you can also explain intertype dissonance using enneagram, or even MBTI (the Beebe model would probably work best in that case). It makes no difference what model you use really. Whatever works best for you I suppose.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ksara said:


> Thanks.
> You make a fair point. I really need to take a step back and employ more active listening. Maybe one of us just isn't taking the time to listen.
> 
> As for different values i'll have to think about that one. I do know there is a big difference with between how we comprehend things. He is a follow the recipe step by steps exactly guy, I'm more I see cake! We seem to start at opposite ends with things and rather than meet in the middle we keep sailing past each other.


It could be something like quasi-identical:



> Quasi-identical types often have the same sphere of interests but see things from different angles. There are difficulties in understanding and inability to acknowledge interests of one another. In collaboration, differences in approaches lead to a desire to move away from your quasi-identical partner and do everything in your own way separately from him. Each partner prefers to go his own way, without accepting opinions and experiences of the other. Due to this, both of them start feeling that they cannot fully rely on one another. It seems your quasi-identical partner can easily leave you in a difficult moment, but usually these suspicions are unfounded.





> Quasi-identical partners are often interested in similar kind of subjects and converse about similar topics but they approach them from completely different viewpoints. There are rarely serious quarrels in these relations, but plenty of minor arguments that are never productive because it is impossible to prove anything to one another.





> Quasi-identical partners are able to find common topics for conversation, understand each other to sufficient depth, but they remain perceptive of mutual "otherness", which brings to these relation a tint of awkwardness and hinders full understandings and agreement.





> Quasi-identity is an intertype relation between two people from opposing quadras who have similar, but not identical functions, and no suggestive influence over the other. Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. *They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying*. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.
> 
> *In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other.* Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.


etc.

It could also be mirror.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> I'm starting to think that certain intertype interactions involve so much dissonance that a relative amount of entropy during every interaction is impossible to avoid.
> 
> Basically, the fact is that different types process information differently, and there is nothing you can do about it except be aware of this so that you can recognize when it happens and just redirect your energy elsewhere instead of banging your head against the wall trying to force things. There's seriously nothing you can do. If you refuse to give up, it will only end in frustration and resentment, but if you let it go and move on to something else, chances are you can avoid making it personal.
> 
> If anything, this is what I gained from studying socionics. I can recognize the fact that people process information differently _in practice_, and the function + block cognitive model of socionics serves as an explanation for this. Although, on that note, you can also explain intertype dissonance using enneagram, or even MBTI (the Beebe model would probably work best in that case). It makes no difference what model you use really. Whatever works best for you I suppose.


Thanks for this. Whilst I'm not yet banging my head against a wall, I'm definitely talking to it. Seems crazy, but in the moment you just don't see the wall right there in front of you until the encounter has passed. I think at this point the situation is something to learn from.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Entropic said:


> It could be something like quasi-identical:
> 
> etc.
> 
> It could also be mirror.


Sounds a bit like it. The parts about not being able to achieve full understanding or agreement yes. I don't think the is a mutual sense of not being able to rely on each other. In the situations we are together seems he relies on my input, and I don't seem to get much input back that I can rely on.
This doesn't fit:


> They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying.


I would say I find his way uninteresting. Often more so irrelevant. 

I'll have a look at mirror.


----------

