# David Keirsey's Ideal Relationships



## Verrsili (Jun 13, 2010)

_Note: If you want to get to the gist, skip to "putting it all together"_
*David Keirsey’s Ideal Relationship*​ MBTI theory is a tool that was primarily designed to aid in self-discovery. Isabel Meyers originally expanded on the work of Carl Jung so that during World War II woman would be able to find out what type of job best fit their personality. The open ended approach that was taken which classified people using only four sorters allowed for surprisingly accurate descriptions of people and personality. But, because this approach was open ended (and primarily focused on self-discovery), it necessarily lacked the type of rigor that is required for a theory to be able to predict more complex phenomenon like inter-type relationships. In effect, there are a lot of half strung out theories of inter-type relationships floating around out there on the internet! This conjecture making is certainly useful and necessary to develop any type of theory, but it is easily observable that most of these theories (by the layman) aren’t consistent and a lot of times actually lead to contradictions, or they allow so much “stretching” and personal liberation to be taken that they aren’t really _hypotheses_ (a hypothesis has to be predictable in order to be considered “useful”). In the 1970s and 80s a more concise theory of personality, Socionics, was developed by the Lithuanian researcher Aušra Augustinavičiūtė to explain and predict intertype relations. However, because Socionics theory contradicts MBTI theory it can’t be used to explain MBTI phenomena in a way that is consistent with MBTI. Less importantly, but still noteworthy, is that this website is MBTI _based_ so discussion of Socionics aren’t the primary direction of this website, and lastly – I honestly haven’t found the predictions of Socionics to correlate with the real world, and they haven’t been empirically tested. This post will be an attempt to supports David Keirsey’s theory of the “Ideal-Relationship” by explaining how cognitive functions manifest themselves and define an individual’s role in life/a relationship.


In David Keirsey’s book “Please Understand Me II” he differed his theory from that of MBTI by placing far more emphasis on the four core temperaments. The way he sorted them is the way that this website does too (albeit, with different names). SJs are the Guardians, SPs are the Artisans, NFs are the Idealists, and NTs are the Rationals. He believed that the two distinguishing factors of the two were _language_ and _the way we go about achieving our goals_. Sensing vs. Intuition was concrete vs. abstract language, and SJs and NFs were _cooperative_ in achieving their goals while SPs and NTs were _utilitarian_. Naturally he provides a far more thorough and in depth analysis in his book, but I am trying to give the gist of his main ideas. He then goes on to say that the best (by now I should have probably added romantic?) relationships are NTs to NFs and SJs to SPs. This is because opposites attract, but the same language usage is still ideal for a relationship.


Because David Keirsey placed a larger emphasis on the temperaments, he didn’t believe that Introversion/Extroversion and Judging/Perceiving were as important. In fact, if I remember correctly, he believed that the temperament was something that we were born with, but the latter two were inherited through early life experience. In other words, the temperaments were nature and the “I/E and J/P” were nurture. However, he still acknowledged that these existed and wrote personality descriptions for all of the 16 types. In his relationship theory he believed that the theoretically “most-ideal” relationships existed when all *but* intuition and sensing were inversed. This leads to the following combinations:
ESTJ – ISFP
ESTP - ISFJ
ESFJ - ISTP
ESFP - ISTJ
ENTJ - INFP
ENTP - INFJ
ENFJ - INTP
ENFP – INTJ
But here is the clincher: David Keirsey doesn’t believe that the “cognitive functions” as we know of them exist. He says,


> This idea of defining personality differences by sticking to what can be
> observed-words and tools-sets Myers's and my view of personality
> rather far apart. Remember that Myers's concept of types was heavily
> influenced by Jung's Psychological Types, a book in which he presented
> ...


David Keirsey proposed a relationship theory like Socionics, but did not see the use for cognitive functions. But Keirsey’s theory doesn’t _contradict_ MBTI theory. It is possible to accept his assertions about relationships and MBTI’s cognitive functions – something that can’t be done with Socionics. With this background in mind, it is possible that the cognitive functions of MBTI do exist, and it is interesting to wonder how these might be giving rise to the relationship patterns that David Keirsey noticed.

*The Judging Functions*​The judging functions are T and F. They are commonly referred to as the “decision-making” functions; however, I think a more concise term would be “organizational functions.” I also think that they are the life goals of every type (this makes sense that if we make decisions about our lives with them then they would be representative of our life goal). So for example: The life goal of Te is external efficiency, Fe is external harmony, Ti is internal understanding, and Fi is internal harmony (these are, of course, grossly oversimplified).

The reason that I believe these are “organizational functions” is because I think that every type has an overarching life goal of organization. *But*, this is not “organizing” in the sense of the word that we may be used to. We generally connote organization with the external world. This explains why somebody whose primary judging functions is extroverted is seen as more organized, and why on the tests that are used to differentiate Judgers vs. Perceivers the primary separators are things relating to organization in the external world (be it arriving on time, or having a clean desk). A lot of people don’t realize that even though judgers seem to be more organized, *perceivers actually have a more organized internal life.* The use of Fi or Ti means that time is spent organizing the internal life into either *a)* an organized value system or *b)* an organized rationally understandable system. The use of Fe or Te means that time is spent organizing the external life into either *a)* organized relationships that are harmonious or* b)* organized efficiency. (I am taking some liberation with the meaning of “organized” – but it is almost a necessary term when the perceiving functions are taken into account (see below)).

Every type primarily exhibits two judging functions, and they oppose each other (either Fe-Ti or Te-Fi). Because these are “*life-goals*” I am proposing that the best type of long term relationship is one where the judging function pairs are shared. A sharing of life goals allows both types to understand what the other partner wants, and both partners can work together as a team to achieve these goals together. In a relationship that doesn’t have the life goals shared, both partners may assume that they know what the other person wants, but in reality they will never be working towards the same thing. Sometimes two types with different judging functions may even appear to be working towards the same thing (INTP and INTJ, for example), but this is actually only surface level and they are only quasi-identical. 


*The Perceiving Functions*​The perceiving functions are N and S. The reason that they are “perceiving” is because they are info gathering, and so info is gleaned or “perceived” from them. Where judging functions are life goals, perceiving functions are merely a means to an end. Information is only data, and so it is raw and unrefined (until of course, a judging function handles it -hence the organization). Because of this, no stigma or emotion can be attached to it – it isn’t a life goal, it is only (like I just said), a means to an end. The difference between introverted info-gathering and extraverted info-gathering is just that . . . the info literally comes from “oneself.” A lot of people don’t realize that even though perceivers seem to be unorganized, *judgers actually have a more disorganized internal life* (hence why we see Ni users saying that there Ni is like an “inner wall of craziness.”)

In order to achieve any end, it helps to have the most means available. Also, a different set of perceiving functions never grates against one’s own because they are arational. So after you have picked any judging function, or “life goal” – the more “means” or perceiving functions that are available for use the more effective of a team a couple will make in achieving this goal. This means that for the most ideal relationship, opposing perceiving functions are ideal. As an INTP, I certainly find ENTPs and ENFPs a ton of fun to be around, but in the long term the Ne becomes stale because we can only see things (or “gather data”) from one angle. I find lighthearted friendships easiest to kick off with people who share my judging functions (or ISTPs) but I digress.


*Other General Notes*​From this point forward I will start giving more specific examples, and because I am an INTP myself, the most comfortable example for me to use is that. If my theories are correct though, it should work with any type. Empirical data has shown that the most important function to share is the perceiving one. Also, I find that my argument for having a different perceiving function is weaker than my judging function argument. So let’s say that all we know now is that the most important thing to have is a sharing of a judging function. A theory should generally be sound by itself without empirical data and then tested for validity; so we need to ignore the empirical data and make a consistent theory _and then_ compare it empirically. My theory at this point really only supports that sharing a judging is important, so the following matches that would be ideal for an INTP at this point are ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTP, ISTP, ENFJ, INFJ, ENTP, and another INTP. I will now try to narrow my argument down and analyze Kerisey’s assertion, and if it does seem to be ideal, then my argument for differing perceiving functions will only be another point on the scoreboard. 

I think that every type exhibits two life goals, but one life goal feels unfulfilled throughout their lifetime. They have a desire for this goal in their life but are not naturally skilled at controlling and need assistance or time to feel at ease with it. I disagree with profile assertions that say mature use of the tertiary and inferior functions don’t come until the 30s and 40s. I think that every type is actually quite adept at using their four functions (more so than they think) but when they are young they learn to avoid it because _at that young age_ when they weren’t skilled with it they learned to avoid (because embarrassment ensued after they did try). For example, an INTP with a tertiary Si may be told that he is absent minded, forgetful of things, etc., which is true to a degree, but this negative energy that is directed towards it only makes them more resentful of it which is why it remains undeveloped for a long period of time (when it didn’t have to be). The same goes for their inferior Fe. Because it is an inferior function, when it does come it is generally simple and straightforward. Imagine at a young age an INTP tries to express his emotion but he doesn’t exactly know how to. He then gets made fun of for this (because his attempts looked stupid and were funny) which only reinforces the idea that he should completely avoid its use all-together. If our society focused more on accepting struggles that other people have and trying to help them instead of bashing them then we would be a lot better off! (This goes for *all types*, I don’t want to see self-pity from INTPs but then watch them turn around and bash an ESFJ’s lack of Ti). Another thing that can happen is that society gives off the message that a certain process somebody uses (like a Ti or Fi Dom) is a problem, and they should use Fe or Te more. This can make an IXXP (or whatever) less trustful of people and more inclined to stick with their most comfortable function because they want to retain their sense of identity that society is telling them they should lose.


*Putting it all together*​I decided to represent my argument visually in this step to make it more easily understandable. I am only going to give two examples, one of an ENFJ-INTP match and one with an ENFP-INFJ match. This should give the two general forms that are representative of all of Keirsey’s “Ideal Relationship” (EXXJ – IXXP, EXXP – IXXJ).










An INTP has a life goal of Fe that needs to be fulfilled, but he is seriously lacking in his ability to utilize this. An ENFJ has a life goal of Ti that needs to be fulfilled, but she is seriously lacking in her ability to utilize this. They both complement each other in the amount of protection they need. Because INTPs are Ti Dom, they would be (one of) the types most able to teach this process.



> INTPs organize their understanding of any topic by articulating principles, and they are especially drawn to theoretical constructs. *Having articulated these principles for themselves, they can demonstrate remarkable skill in explaining complex ideas to others in simple terms*, especially in writing. On the other hand, their ability to grasp complexity may also lead them to provide overly detailed explanations of "simple" ideas, and listeners may judge that the INTP makes things more difficult than they are. To the INTP, however, this is incomprehensible: They are merely presenting all the information.


Because ENFJs are Fe Dom, they would be (one of) the types most able to teach this process.



> ENFJs have an intuitive sense of the emotional state of others, and often act as an emotional barometer for the people around them. They tend to personally experience the feelings of others, and are highly motivated to create harmony in their environments.


This quote is from another user on this site Sleeve of Wizard. I hope he doesn’t mind me the spotlight:


> I've had two of the 3 ENFJ's hold me by the arm and gently tug me somewhere, while quietly pleading me to go with them. I love it ^_^ It's like a charming way of disarming my stubborn independence, renders me submissive lol.


Let’s now look at the information gathering dynamics of these types:










In other words, *both types gather information of the same type and at the same rate.* For both of them they gather information in Intuition first and then Sensing, and for both of them these are the secondary and tertiary respectively. This gives them the same information metabolism which means that they are able to communicate extremely effectively and are consistently on the same “wavelength.” This is also why an ESFJ wouldn’t be able to “help” an INTPs Fe as well as the ENFJ, the ESFJ wouldn’t present the information in a way that is inherently understandable to the INTP, they would be on different wavelengths and it would “rub them the wrong way.” (Maybe "understandable" isn't exactly the right word, but I think you get the idea). Instead of healing a weak Fe the ESFJ would actually make the INTP feel less secure in its use (and the INTP would make an ESFJ feel less secure in the use of their Ti). 

But why wouldn’t an INFJ be able to do the same? David Keirsey actually says that the least important ‘flip’ that can occur in relationships is Introversion vs. Extraversion. So INFJ-INTP is* close to ideal*. But because the INFJ would be Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, the information metabolism of the two types would be different. The assistance the INFJ gives for Fe might not be adept enough, and the assistance the INTP gives for Ti might be too overbearing (a little competition might start to occur). Because of this lack of symmetry it will characterize itself as a *lopsided relationship. *


Let’s now move on to the other example. ENFP-INTJ.








For both types the information metabolism is the same. The amount of assistance that the INTJ needs for Fi is significant, but it isn’t as large as say, an INTPs need for Fe. So because an ENFP’s secondary instead of dominant function is Fi, it complements the INTJs need perfectly. It is quite mathematical.


*Closer*​With this post I hope to have explained what might be causing Keirsey’s “Ideal Relationships” to exist (that is, if they exist). I know it was a little long, but I think that most of what I said was necessary to fully understand the idea (and believe me, I wanted to add a lot more!). In the end, the perceiving functions were different and this was because the information metabolism of all “Ideal-Matches” necessitates this. It is important to note that all real hypotheses aren’t considered a science until they have been tested against the external world, so compare this with the world and expand this theory, think about it, and improve it!

This following quote is borrowed from Socionics, but I still think it is an excellent description of why you might never meet or ever _truly get to know_ your ideal match. When checking to see if this type of relationship will work with a specific person you know, make sure to keep in mind that a lot of times it won’t work well because of things not related to type. No matter how psychologically compatible an ENFP and INTJ might be, if the ENFP is a drug addict – then it probably won’t be the best relationship. 


> However, let's not idealise these relations too much. Although theoretically relations of Duality are the best of the best, practically not everybody who is your Dual will make your dreams come true. The reason for this is that we are usually so twisted up during the course of our lives that our already formed and stable views and attitudes can affect our relationships quite heavily. In fact, younger people have more chance to succeed in the quest for their perfect partner than older people. But the chances are always there.
> 
> There are at least two conditions to be completed for a successful relationship between Duals. Firstly between the partners there has to be at least a minimal mutual attraction. Secondly and most importantly is that the partners are truly striving for the same or similar things. This may include common interests and/or life goals. Partners that are both seriously thinking about building a family are a good example. Logically saying: two halves of the same whole must not repel or move in the different directions, otherwise the whole will break into pieces. Relations of Duality also go through several stages. The first stage sometimes can be really tense. It is like a new engine that requires a "run in" first. If relations crumble it normally happens in the first stage. The more stages completed by Duals the more unbreakable their relationship.
> 
> However, nature has played a little trick on us. It is difficult to notice your Dual partner among all the other types and even easier to pass them by. Usually during first contact extroverts think about their introvert Dual as ordinary and simple, therefore not deserving their personal attention. In return introverts consider their extrovert Dual to be too good for them and therefore unattainable.


----------



## snapdragons (Feb 1, 2011)

All I gotta say is, there is NO WAY an ISTJ and ESFP could make a good couple. ESTP? Yes. But the feeler-perceiver would be a bad combination. I've read other resources about pairing for the types and ESFP and ENFP were the two worst for ISTJ's. I'm looking at the other types and see other combinations that I don't think would necessarily work well.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

snapdragons said:


> All I gotta say is, there is NO WAY an ISTJ and ESFP could make a good couple. ESTP? Yes. But the feeler-perceiver would be a bad combination. I've read other resources about pairing for the types and ESFP and ENFP were the two worst for ISTJ's. I'm looking at the other types and see other combinations that I don't think would necessarily work well.


I actually am not convinced Kiersey is that far off in his assessments in the real world. ENFP and ISTJ actually do make good couples, so long as they can learn to see the other person's perspective. That's probably a common pairing actually, they balance each other possessing all the same functions just in reverse order. 

He basically asserts that NFs and NFs get along (no surprise here) and NFs and NTs do okay. And Sensation types with Sensation types. Again I think theoretically this is probably fairly true, though I think in reality since attraction is often not related to type but to the persona and other underlying issues, its much harder to say with any certainty whether or not these relationships would actually last. The ENFP/ISTJ is a true compensatory mechanism where one person's strength is the other's weakness. If they can learn to see the other person's perspective as valid, they shouldn't be hindered at least typologically. But some of the Si/Se type may or may not fly, it just depends on the person. 

The other thing to factor in to this, which Kiersey doesn't really is the role of the judging functions. Differences in perception might be intriguing (or at worst annoying), but difference in judgment (especially Feeling) can be deadly. Imagine a strong Fi-type with a strong Fe-type and you might have a recipe for major issues (I think Te and Ti just annoy each other, but Fe and Fi being much more central to a person's emotional core can be big problems).


----------



## Verrsili (Jun 13, 2010)

snapdragons said:


> All I gotta say is, there is NO WAY an ISTJ and ESFP could make a good couple. ESTP? Yes. But the feeler-perceiver would be a bad combination. I've read other resources about pairing for the types and ESFP and ENFP were the two worst for ISTJ's. I'm looking at the other types and see other combinations that I don't think would necessarily work well.


But why don't you think it would work? It can't be because of the feeler-perceiver combination conflicting with thinking-judging because there are combos like ENFP-INTJ that we know (or at least it seems to be a common theme on this website) do work well. Personally, I have witnessed a positive ISTJ-ESFP relationship, but I can see why this particular one is a harder pill to swallow.

Personalitypage.com says this:


http://www.personalitypage.com/html/ISTJ_rel.html said:


> Although two well-developed individuals of any type can enjoy a healthy relationship, the ISTJ's natural partner is the ESFP, or the ESTP. ISTJ's dominant function of Introverted Sensing is best matched with a partner whose personality is dominated by Extraverted Sensing.


What I really want to see is a _consistent theory_ of why certain type combos will or will not work well together. In other words, if you say fp-tj doesn't work well then explain why, and your explanation should have truth for all relationships of this pattern. Here is what David Keirsey says about this combo:


> Inspectors and Performers are likely to be most compatible. Here is
> the seclusive and tough-minded Inspector (ISTJ), the model of trustworthiness,
> thoroughness, and legitimacy, wanting to bring some accountability
> to the Performer, while at the same time enjoying the outgoing and friendly
> ...





LiquidLight said:


> The other thing to factor in to this, which Kiersey doesn't really is the role of the judging functions. Differences in perception might be intriguing (or at worst annoying), but difference in judgment (especially Feeling) can be deadly. Imagine a strong Fi-type with a strong Fe-type and you might have a recipe for major issues (I think Te and Ti just annoy each other, but Fe and Fi being much more central to a person's emotional core can be big problems).


 This is exactly what I was saying in my post too.


----------



## Verrsili (Jun 13, 2010)

Mod please delete


----------



## User299393 (8 mo ago)

Is it a better compatibility to switch F/T or not? Or is it only better for intuitives but not for sensors?


----------

