# Socionics compatibility is bust



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

So I've has a night to mull over this, and here are my thoughts-- (I am coming from here, btw)

Socionics compatibility theory seems to be based upon functionality--i.e., what the pair can accomplish by together contributing all sides of the equation and focusing them in one direction, either J or P. This compelling, especially if the primary focus of the relationship is function, especially working relationships, etc. My husband's boss is his duality partner, and they work splendidly together. His sister is also his duality partner, and they also have a tight relationship, often seeking out each other for input on their latest projects or ideas. 

However, Keirsey found that people tend to be romantically attracted based on their ability to communicate with one another--i.e. either the shared N or the shared S. (According to K, N's think and communicate abstractly, S's think and communicate non-abstractly). With regards to romance, he found that linear functionality is less important to folks than intimacy.

You always hear older folks admonishing their budding adults that the most important aspect of any marriage is the ability to communicate, right? Keirsey's evidence supports their speculative wisdom. 

Anecdotally, moreover, Keirsey's theory seems to carry more weight. Before I even knew about personality theories, I fell in love with two of my Keirseyian matches, INTJs (who happen to be my conflicting partners according to socionics)--marrying the latter. Out of my immediate family, five of the eight marriages are Keirseyian NF on NT, at least three of them perfect Keirseyian matches (opposite E/I and J/P preferences). I know that's anecdotal, but I see how well it works out between us, and I just want everyone here to know.

I hear a lot of skepticism regarding how an E/I, or an F/T, or a P/J match would work out, but these skeptics don't realize the communication potential of the shared N. Even when our conflicting preferences got in the way (as they sometimes did when we were younger) my INTJ husband and I could always talk freely with each other and know that we're being heard and understood. Out of this mutual understanding, we learned respect each other's preferences, and even find them fascinating. 

Especially if each party matures enough to express their contradicting preferences in positive, constructing ways, these "opposites" become a source of balance to the other. DH has given me direction and focus, a degree of stability to nurture my creative potential. I offer him insight into his human relationships and optimism to buoy his doom and gloom premonitions. Within our intimacy of communication, we share a panoramic view of the world around us; always a ticket to the other side of the human spectrum. 

Our marital functionality becomes also panoramic--rather than linear in direction, as it would in a Socionics duality match. This is especially helpful when having children because the temperament of the child is impossible to choose... (except that there tends to be a degree of genetic preference after the parents. For instance, we have an ENTJ son and an INFP son. Based on the prevalence of the S in the world, I suspect the N is more of a recessive trait.) 

Moreover, my husband's parents were a socionic beneficiary match to the father (INTP<ISTJ) and, yes, they ran a highly functional household. Offhand, it was rather successful; they had four kids who all grew up to be successful, contributing members of society. But their ability to communicate with one another was (and is still) atrocious. After years of emotional estrangement, feeling misunderstood and micro-managed, his father left his mother for...an INFJ. A Keirseyian match. 12 years later, they're still together, second marriage for both; husband never saw his dad happier.

Besides what empirical evidence Keirsey offers, I realize that I am speculating mostly off of anecdotal evidence. (Of course, then, both Jung and Myers-Briggs did the same, and look what they came up with, right? That NFP is rather good, wouldn't you say?)

I just find it interesting that--whether or not the relationship works out--Keirseyian matches at PerC nearly always describe each other in terms of "instant connection," "chemical attraction," even "great sex" whereas socionic duality partners seem to find each other...requiring a great deal of maturity in order to appreciate (which is probably right, btw.)

My honest opinion? Socionics compatibility is an overwrought convoluted mess which offers only slight insight into the human condition as well as _lots _of bad dating advice. 

P.S. Keirsey's compatibility theory differs from the MBTI compatibility theory. Some folks get them confused, which is unfortunate, since MB's compatibility theory was as bad, if not worse, than socionics'. For folks that are new to his theory, his book is a better resource, but his website gives the gist: Keirsey Temperament Website - Personality and Your Career


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

Some folks have asked me if my husband and I feel something missing in our relationship because neither of us have an S preference. We don't really--I mean, it's not like a gaping hole in our relationship--although our house does tend to run a bit messier based on our mutual preference for getting lost in our heads. 

So it might be. I think that's the truth about any match, however--that preferences of the human spectrum will be missing in nearly all relationships except the perfect opposites, INFP with ESTJ, for instance. Jung's theory, I think, proposed this as the ideal match. Since him, no one else has.

So it's a choice--which variable (or variables) are we going to make redundant in our match?

Keirsey's theory is that the mode of communication ought to be redundant--that, if they share nothing else, romantic pairs ought to at least be able to communicate easily with one another.

Personally, the missing S seems a small price to pay for the degree of emotional intimacy two N's can share.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I think the problem here is that you mix theories. Keirsey's understanding of intuition and sensation is very different to socionics' understanding thereof. In socionics, and moreso, Jung, concrete thinking has more to do with extroversion and "abstract" thinking more to do with introversion. Though I think it is false to call it abstract or even ideational, as intuition operates on the idea of seeing "what is behind the corner", as Jung put it himself. 

Also, in socionics, IEE (ENFP in MBTI) and ILI (INTJ in MBTI) is seen as a largely positive relationship, being mirage. 

As for how dualization operates in socionics, I think you slightly misunderstand how it works here as well, since Keirsey's view is very different to socionics'. The general idea is based on Jung's idea of synergy and balance, meaning that if one is weak in sensation, then one seeks sensation in others because one seeks help in that area. As is laid out in socionics, even if two people are intuitive types, the relationship has more to do with how one values the elements. So you being an IEE would have difficulties grasping and getting along with the perception of Ni because it fundamentally opposes your Si and Ne. So if someone goes on a long Ni rant, you might feel and experience yourself mentally exhausted being unable to process that information.

Therein lies the biggest difference between Keirsey and socionics, in that socionics is ultimately a theory about cognition but I think Keirsey's theory has more to do with observable behavior in people, and I also think his theory is rather stereotype and is based more on character archetypes than actual people. Keirsey might for instance consider @Animal an ESFP because she sees herself as concrete, deals more with concrete reality, is more of a doer and so on. Yet here cognition suggests something different. Similarly, Keirsey might think I'm an INTP because I'm not organized (but in socionics you will see that those that favor irrational IMs as their base will be more disorganized!) and I see myself as logical and so on. But what has being logical anything to do with type in actuality? Anyone can be logical. What matters is _how_ people are logical. My IxFP friend, I think she's an INFP or EII, scored ISTP on an MBTI test. Stereotypically, she is closer to an ISTP too, being introverted, more hands-on and preferring concrete experience, but her thinking is very typically Fi-Te dominance. 

So anecdotally, I actually think socionics carries more weight than Keirsey, personally. In socionics, if you are say, an IEE, and try to communicate with an LIE, you might feel that even though you somewhat understand where each one of you is coming from, there is still something that doesn't seem quite right because your goals and reasoning processes are fundamentally different. So with regards to seeing what is behind the corner, if both of you have two fundamentally opposing ways of understanding what is behind the corner e.g. introversion versus extroversion, you might still not get along because of those differences in perception. This holds even more true if none of the IMs is valued in another e.g. ILI versus ILE.

Last but not least, just because you are duals or something else in a theory it doesn't mean you must automatically get along. What it means is that you might understand where each other is coming from better, but it doesn't promise friendship or love. No theory can predict this with accuracy. However, statistically, based on what I've observed, I do think dualization has an interesting merit as many people I know in relationships (both platonic and romantic) seem to at least be of the same or close to same quadra.


----------



## Archetype (Mar 17, 2011)

dawilliams said:


> Some folks have asked me if my husband and I feel something missing in our relationship because neither of us have an S preference. We don't really--I mean, it's not like a gaping hole in our relationship--although our house does tend to run a bit messier based on our mutual preference for getting lost in our heads.
> 
> So it might be. I think that's the truth about any match, however--that preferences of the human spectrum will be missing in nearly all relationships except the perfect opposites, INFP with ESTJ, for instance. Jung's theory, I think, proposed this as the ideal match. Since him, no one else has.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more. In contrary my experience taught me that an S and N relationship (specially romantic relationship) produce more friction than intimacy. They are standing in different places. The N might be got bored because the S is 'too conventional' and the S might not understand the N because sunk in the depth of their thoughts and feelings.

My father is a strong ISTJ and my mother is an ENFJ. They are okay, but in the end, sometimes my mother cant reach my hard-headed father. I observe that they are not really close. My mother are closer to me (ENTP) and my sister (ISTP). Me and my mother really connected in way of thinking, that's why I enjoy her company.

Theoretically speaking, I couldn't think a way for an INTP and ESFP relationship would work (Not to over-generalzing here, I'm speaking theoretically). The ESFP would worn the heck out of INTP. In the end, we are talking about theories, not to mention this is social science. CMIIW


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Archetype said:


> Couldn't agree more. In contrary my experience taught me that an S and N relationship (specially romantic relationship) produce more friction than intimacy. They are standing in different places. The N might be got bored because the S is 'too conventional' and the S might not understand the N because sunk in the depth of their thoughts and feelings.
> 
> My father is a strong ISTJ and my mother is an ENFJ. They are okay, but in the end, sometimes my mother cant reach my hard-headed father. I observe that they are not really close. My mother are closer to me (ENTP) and my sister (ISTP). Me and my mother really connected in way of thinking, that's why I enjoy her company.
> 
> Theoretically speaking, I couldn't think a way for an INTP and ESFP relationship would work (Not to over-generalzing here, I'm speaking theoretically). The ESFP would worn the heck out of INTP. In the end, we are talking about theories, not to mention this is social science. CMIIW


In this case, socionics doesn't contradict what you are saying. INTP and ESFP are conflictors in socionics, so they wouldn't get along or have a difficult time doing so because the way they communicate and seek interaction with others is fundamentally opposed. Even Beebe thinks this way.


----------



## Archetype (Mar 17, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> In this case, socionics doesn't contradict what you are saying. INTP and ESFP are conflictors in socionics, so they wouldn't get along or have a difficult time doing so because the way they communicate and seek interaction with others is fundamentally opposed. Even Beebe thinks this way.


Here is my suource, it says that INTP and ESFP are duality
http://www.socionics.com/rel/relcht.htm


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Sadly not enough time just now to write more just now, but just very quickly about friction in S/N relationships:

I am, and always was, the living proof that this isn't the case. Doesn't really say anything, not more or less than other people feel they gel better with Ns (or whatever else). 
I never really picked my partners according to type, and I'm not bothered in the slightest, but it turns out that I always had the strongest connections to ISxPs. I never had the feeling I didn't understand them, or they didn't understand me - quite the opposite actually. Only exception: I had problems with an ESTJ (my ex husband), and I also had rather troublesome relationships (both friendships and romantic ones) with other N-types, especially INTx.

Speaking of myself and my partners/friends in terms of MBTI, Socionics and Keirsey: We are also not cases that translate in a straightforward manner (and neither should people expect this - the approach is just too different to say "INFJ automatically equals IEI (Socionics) or Counselor (Keirsey)". 
That doesn't take into consideration how I personally feel about any of the theories btw - I admit I'm neither a big fan of Socionics, nor of MBTI.

Need to run, maybe more later...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Archetype said:


> Here is my suource, it says that INTP and ESFP are duality
> Complete relationship chart between psychological ("personality") types


Ok, do you understand what the lower case letter indicates? It means in socionics jargon, that INTp is actually the equivalent of an MBTI INTJ because they both favor NiTe. An ESFp is still ESFP though. In socionics, the J/P is switched for the introverts, so an INTP in socionics is actually an INTj because they favor TiNe.

So in your example, it would be more precise to understand it that an LII (INTP) engaged with an SEE (ESFP), that is indeed, in a conflict-relationship in socionics and is a largely negative relationship as a whole with a lot of misunderstandings occurring. An ILI (INTJ) and SEE (ESFP) are duals though, because they both share NiTe SeFi cognition but in an inverted form.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Ok, do you understand what the lower case letter indicates? It means in socionics jargon, that INTp is actually the equivalent of an MBTI INTJ because they both favor NiTe.


Source?


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Kiersey is too simplistic, even for dumb narrow-minded sensors like me. 

Anyway, surely a couple will communicate easier if they favor the same information/perception? In my own experience this has seemed to be the case. I get on very well with xNTJs (Socionics xNTps) and most Se/Ni Fi/Te types (Gamma quadra). Similarly, I seem to have the most difficulties understanding and relating to the those from the opposing quadra to my own (with opposing 'functions').

A word of caution: make sure you understand the theory before you knock it. Socionics is a lot more in depth and complex than both MBTI and Kiersey. 

Oh, I'm also happily dating an INTJ (INTp). Communication between us is crystal clear and the sex incredible. That's enough evidence for me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Source?


Source for what? That INTJ means NiTe or INTp means NiTe? 

INTJ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Portrait of an INTJ
http://www.typeinsights.com/FreeArticles/Evolvingthe8functionmodel.pdf

And so on.

Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Given the formal similarities present between Socionics and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) abbreviations frequently used in English, some prefer to distinguish socionic type names from Myers-Briggs' names by writing the last letter (J or P) in lower case (for example, ENTp, ESFj) —a practice introduced by Sergei Ganin.[54]


Then of course one can argue that MBTI is _only_ about the four-letter code, but I think this view is much closer to Keirsey's than MBTI. Aside the tests, MBTI tries to introduce all practitioners into function theory at some point. 



Kintsugi said:


> Communication between us is crystal clear and *the sex incredible*. That's enough evidence for me.


Because it's always about the sex, right?


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

No matter which model we personally prefer, like or dislike:

I think one of the main problems is that so many people try to "translate" between the theories. They're not really comparable, not even the way they define functions. It ultimately doesn't matter if INFJ (MBTI) "translates" to INFp/IEI in Socionics, for the mere reason that the way they define functions is totally different. The way MBTI defines Fe/extraverted Feeling is fundamentally different from the way Socionics defines Fe/extraverted Ethics for instance.

I am a confirmed INFJ in MBTI (had to do it or a job), and I always have been in any other test I've ever taken since I was a teenager. I am not a Socionics IEI/INFp however, but EII. And going by the way Socionics defines type and functions, it makes absolute sense if you know me. That doesn't make MBTI wrong, or Socionics right - it's just fundamentally different.

As for type compatibility: I personally think (that's all it is, just an opinion) that you _connect through shared functions_ - they are the common ground. You can decide if you want to go strictly Jungian (then you cannot even be 100% sure about the attitudes of the inferior functions), MBTI, Socionics. Doesn't matter in my view, just stick with one theory and don't try to translate between them. The problem arises if you for instance go: "I'm INFJ, that's Socionics INFp/IEI", and then you try to squeeze this possibly erroneous idea into Socionics Intertype Relationships. It simply doesn't work that way.

My own examples, and I'm just staying with MBTI now to make it clearer, but you could really pick any of the theories, provided you don't just have a very superficial understanding of them.



INFJ (Ni-Fe-Ti-Se) and ISFP (Fi-Se-Ni-Te) - we share two functions (Se & Ni), despite being Keirsey NF and SP. This my partner of 8 years, and our relationship has no communication problems whatsoever. It's quite frankly the best relationship I've ever had, on every level.
INFJ (Ni-Fe-Ti-Se) and ISTP (Ti-Se-Ni-Fe) - we share all functions, just in different order. NF and SP again. My best male friend. No communication problems either. And our main connection is via Se and Fe, believe it or not.
INFJ (Ni-Fe-Ti-Se) and INFP (Fi-Ne-Si-Te) - no shared functions, despite being both NF. Ex BF I _constantly_ fought with - completely different planet.
INFJ (Ni-Fe-Ti-Se) and ESTJ (Te-Si-Ne-Fi) - no shared functions. That's the ex-husband. Well, says it all really.

Or maybe none of this actually matters, and it just depends on the individual...


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Source for what? That INTJ means NiTe or INTp means NiTe?


That the lowercase j or p means INTp is the same as INTJ, which is what you seem to be implying with your wording. All the lowercase letter means is that one is referring to a Socionics type and not an MBTI one. Any conclusions past that are your own.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> That the lowercase j or p means INTp is the same as INTJ, which is what you seem to be implying with your wording. All the lowercase letter means is that one is referring to a Socionics type and not an MBTI one. Any conclusions past that are your own.


Well yes, but they refer to the type that is supposed to have the same cognition so I don't see why such separation is necessary. Ultimately the systems attempt to describe a specific set of human cognition derived from Jung, so I see that as the common idea they share. Then they go on doing this in different ways and one can argue how effective they are at doing so respectively, but it doesn't disprove their shared basis, in my opinion.


----------



## HellCat (Jan 17, 2013)

To me "compatibility theory" is as scientifically sound as astrology/numerology chinese zodiac. A Sensor can be a brain, A "thinker" can be a space cadet. It is simply a good scapegoat for a failed relationship. Any "healthy" type of any number or letter combination can be happily paired and challenged. Oh no hes a pig and I am a tiger. We can't be together. Right...


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Awh maaan. I expected boobs. :crying:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LeoCat said:


> To me "compatibility theory" is as scientifically sound as astrology/numerology chinese zodiac. A Sensor can be a brain, A "thinker" can be a space cadet. It is simply a good scapegoat for a failed relationship. Any "healthy" type of any number or letter combination can be happily paired and challenged. Oh no hes a pig and I am a tiger. We can't be together. Right...


It's a prediction based on observable patterns. It doesn't always have to work out flawlessly since there are many variables as to why people get along or don't, but the main idea is that intertype relationships is _one_ of them. In my personal experience, intertype also _does_ play a large role in what people we like and get along with and what people we don't like and get along with.

All of my friends are Fi-Te valuing types for example. I cannot get around or be with Fe types for most of the part, unless some very Fe-subdued INFJ or similar. This is what intertype tries to explain, and some people are more sensitive to this than others, and again, it's a complex issue with many factors involved. It is thus a prediction of behavior, not a set expectation of behavior.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Well yes, but they refer to the type that is supposed to have the same cognition so I don't see why such separation is necessary. Ultimately the systems attempt to describe a specific set of human cognition derived from Jung, so I see that as the common idea they share. Then they go on doing this in different ways and one can argue how effective they are at doing so respectively, but it doesn't disprove their shared basis, in my opinion.


You know I absolutely disagree with this line of reasoning, so that line of discussion stops here. My point stands. Also, the separation is necessary, or you mislead people by telling them something that is not true.


----------



## Archetype (Mar 17, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Ok, do you understand what the lower case letter indicates? It means in socionics jargon, that INTp is actually the equivalent of an MBTI INTJ because they both favor NiTe. An ESFp is still ESFP though. In socionics, the J/P is switched for the introverts, so an INTP in socionics is actually an INTj because they favor TiNe.
> 
> So in your example, it would be more precise to understand it that an LII (INTP) engaged with an SEE (ESFP), that is indeed, in a conflict-relationship in socionics and is a largely negative relationship as a whole with a lot of misunderstandings occurring. An ILI (INTJ) and SEE (ESFP) are duals though, because they both share NiTe SeFi cognition but in an inverted form.


Thank you very much for straightening me up. 



Kanerou said:


> Source?


Hereis a more elaborate diagram Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Intertype Relations Chart 


For the record, this is Keirsey's view on Opposites attract. 
Keirsey Temperament Website - Personality and Your Career

As I said before we are talking a social science theory. Meaning not 100% proofed, and unlike the laws of physics, even a well tested social science theory would have few exceptions. In my experience communication between N is stimulating. As an N, I didn't know how a communication work between S. Maybe be Someone could elaborate?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Archetype said:


> Hereis a more elaborate diagram Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Intertype Relations Chart


This link is not at all relevant to my question, which I elaborated on a few posts up.


----------

