# Intertype relations



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

What is the point of Socionics if you do not put weight on ITR. I seen a lot of post saying "People are sooo much more then a type, do not put any weight on ITR just let it develop. Treat this theory as if it do not exist". I mean, COMON. What is the point of ITR and Socionics if you do not use ITR as a variabel in your life? 

:ball:


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> What is the point of Socionics if you do not put weight on ITR. I seen a lot of post saying "People are sooo much more then a type, do not put any weight on ITR just let it develop. Treat this theory as if it do not exist". I mean, COMON. What is the point of ITR and Socionics if you do not use ITR as a variabel in your life?
> 
> :ball:


Because ITR is like a force multiplier: 0,1(or something) for conflictors and 2,0 for Duality(ie: just a coefficient).

It essentially tells you NOTHING more than how high your chance of establishing good contact and understanding with a person is. After that, you're on your own, dawg! Don't blame some system for your failures. That's like the first rule of MBTI, Astrology...hell anything! Also: you aren't the sum of your parts: you are more.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Ixim said:


> It essentially tells you NOTHING more than how high your chance of establishing good contact and understanding with a person is.


That's a pretty useful tool...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> What is the point of Socionics if you do not put weight on ITR. I seen a lot of post saying "People are sooo much more then a type, do not put any weight on ITR just let it develop. Treat this theory as if it do not exist". I mean, COMON. What is the point of ITR and Socionics if you do not use ITR as a variabel in your life?
> 
> :ball:


Have you ever been in a really deep and serious relationship before where you began thinking about that you actually may want to have a family in the future with this person? 

Imagine now that someone told you that you are dating your conflictor; would you just drop all plans and break up because of it? Of course not. ITR can explain why you sometimes miscommunicate or don't always understand each other, but that's the extent of what ITR can and should explain. A relationship is so much more than ITR. It's extremely reductionist to think that ITR is all what a relationship is. Furthermore, when you keep try to attribute every little thing to typology, you actually lose out the depth and meaning of experience because instead of simply living in the moment and taking on the challenges as they are, you are so occupied trying to fit it into boxes that you lose sight of what actually is. It's no better than the dad who keeps promising to stay home more with his kids but when he's home he ends up drinking and actually not spending time with them and when confronted he doesn't understand the problem because he thinks he fulfilled the promise of being home. 

ITR attempt to describe aspects of reality but it does not define reality to always be a certain way.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> That's a pretty useful tool...


I haven't said it wasn't, did I?

I merely explained what it is and yes, it can be and most often is useful to gauge the "difficulty" of interaction with someone. So you can prepare and stuff.


----------



## foxy (Nov 5, 2015)

*Lord help me.*

Honestly Idk what is better. I have been involved with two different guys in the span of my 18 years of life. I LITERALLY HAD THE EXTREME OF BOTH ENDS. I am INFP, and i was in a three year "relationship" with a fellow INFP and guess what....it was the most emotionally draining yet fun I have ever had with a guy. He would never take charge though...and never verbally admitted feelings for me and that bothered me more then anything. Sometimes i feel like I was loosing my mind because of how emotionally unstable I am already plus him to add even more emotion and stress...sometimes i felt like his mother. Well...even still I had so much fun with him cause he appreciated everything i did, like music, and art and writing and just the simple beauty of life....but i had to end it cause he became overwhelming and i couldn't handle all the overwhelming emotion cause i am already super emotional...but then...there is now this INTP/ENTP and it is so reversed and it's more stable but he is so inconsiderate and sometimes so mean and we have nothing in common. He also is extremely complicated and idk why but I am so attracted to that and I love figuring people out...but the problem is i think i might be learning that there really isn't anything more there then I think there is. I feel safe though, i had a very unstable childhood so I love the aspect of safety...but there isn't much there. I feel like I will never find a guy who is stable for me, yet thoughtful and passionate over the same things as me. I have only found extremes and i might be loosing hope :/


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

My own finding it that ITR is useful in the way that you don't kid yourself when you enter into communications with a type.
You know what the hangups are and don't have to be all WTF just happened when it comes along.
If I go hang out with my old conflictor buddy (not that I do), I can lay it on no one else than myself if I'm tired afterwards.

Jungian types are only part of the puzzle though.
Cause what instinct and what enneagram type is your conflictor?
If they are dom in your blindspot you bet they will be twice the pain in the ass.
Not only is the perspective all wrong, but they insist on creating burnout activities.

In the end we have different levels of surplus in our life.
Who is to say what direction we use it in?
I spend time with an INTP now and then, he is a good friend, but we have long breaks from each other.
We both know the theory and have an agreement to not tire each other out.
There is no set answer, each must figure out how they will deal with the terrain themself.
ITR is just a map nothing more, a map doesn't tell you what to do, only what is there.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Have you ever been in a really deep and serious relationship before where you began thinking about that you actually may want to have a family in the future with this person?
> 
> Imagine now that someone told you that you are dating your conflictor; would you just drop all plans and break up because of it? Of course not. ITR can explain why you sometimes miscommunicate or don't always understand each other, but that's the extent of what ITR can and should explain. A relationship is so much more than ITR. It's extremely reductionist to think that ITR is all what a relationship is. Furthermore, when you keep try to attribute every little thing to typology, you actually lose out the depth and meaning of experience because instead of simply living in the moment and taking on the challenges as they are, you are so occupied trying to fit it into boxes that you lose sight of what actually is. It's no better than the dad who keeps promising to stay home more with his kids but when he's home he ends up drinking and actually not spending time with them and when confronted he doesn't understand the problem because he thinks he fulfilled the promise of being home.
> 
> ITR attempt to describe aspects of reality but it does not define reality to always be a certain way.


You are using it wrong. Hehe
I do not see why people go to the absolute. Oh I have a deep spirital connection with this person, and then some theory douchy Socionics guy tell me that we should be conflictors therefor I will end this relation. Be real pls.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

hornet said:


> My own finding it that ITR is useful in the way that you don't kid yourself when you enter into communications with a type.
> You know what the hangups are and don't have to be all WTF just happened when it comes along.
> If I go hang out with my old conflictor buddy (not that I do), I can lay it on no one else than myself if I'm tired afterwards.
> 
> ...


The only way I would call ITR a map is if there is pirates and hidden treasures in it. I see ITR more as a direct implication of Socionics at its very core. It is basically how information exchange will work out and how the information you are dealing with match with the information I am dealing with. Then there are some branches from that for example erotic attitude were we only look at the perceiving function. Socionics is basically the theory of ITR and everything before (finding ones type and learning to identify others type) is the buildup for ITR.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Captain Mclain said:


> The only way I would call ITR a map is if there is pirates and hidden treasures in it. I see ITR more as a direct implication of Socionics at its very core. It is basically how information exchange will work out and how the information you are dealing with match with the information I am dealing with. Then there are some branches from that for example erotic attitude were we only look at the perceiving function. *Socionics is basically the theory of ITR* and everything before (finding ones type and learning to identify others type) is the buildup for ITR.


And what is a theory if not a map?
Every theory I know of is a map for me to use.
If you are not comfortable with using the map analogy, then so be it.

According to the map and your self-typing of IEI, I'm to just chill out over this little difference of opinion.
Nothing good will come of trying to press the point.



> Benefactor may feel irritation because he is unable to understand the requests and needs of the beneficiary. Beneficiary, in turn, trying to reach an understanding, can begin to over-dramatize the situation. He feels that the benefactor is not considering his interests and may make attempts to re-educate his partner, but this proves to be useless. The benefactor still does not understand what was wanted of him.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Ixim said:


> Because ITR is like a force multiplier: 0,1(or something) for conflictors and 2,0 for Duality(ie: just a coefficient).
> 
> It essentially tells you NOTHING more than how high your chance of establishing good contact and understanding with a person is. After that, you're on your own, dawg! Don't blame some system for your failures. That's like the first rule of MBTI, Astrology...hell anything! Also: you aren't the sum of your parts: you are more.


It is what it is... Nothing more or less.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> It is what it is... Nothing more or less.


Have I said anything else, but tried to guess its actual numbers?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Ixim said:


> Have I said anything else, but tried to guess its actual numbers?


I mean, yes sure. But then you continue with saying that Socionics tell you nothing how you connect with an other person. To that I replied "It is what it is... Nothing more or less.".


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> You are using it wrong. Hehe
> I do not see why people go to the absolute. Oh I have a deep spirital connection with this person, and then some theory douchy Socionics guy tell me that we should be conflictors therefor I will end this relation. Be real pls.


I am real. I recommend rereading your OP and the logical implications you suggest in it. There's a reason people respond the way you do, to it.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> I am real. I recommend rereading your OP and the logical implications you suggest in it. There's a reason people respond the way you do, to it.


Right, it was a rant. Do what you want lol.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> What is the point of Socionics if you do not put weight on ITR. I seen a lot of post saying "People are sooo much more then a type, do not put any weight on ITR just let it develop. Treat this theory as if it do not exist". I mean, COMON. What is the point of ITR and Socionics if you do not use ITR as a variabel in your life?
> 
> :ball:


The ITR theories are correct. What is not correct is the self-understanding of individuals who view it. It is easier to pick and choose which parts of Socionics to follow, to place your wants and desires where you please, and disregard other parts, than it is to accept reality and pick the various types for people which make everything line-out with the theory.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

I can see there being some validity to intertype relations, and maybe they can even be useful... Although I don't think that means people should just go "oh, we're incompatible types, that means we can never come to an understanding ever" or similar things. I mean, sometimes it's like intertype is used as an excuse to act dismissive to anyone who doesn't share your view, or something like that, which gets annoying fast.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Distortions said:


> I can see there being some validity to intertype relations, and maybe they can even be useful... Although I don't think that means people should just go "oh, we're incompatible types, that means we can never come to an understanding ever" or similar things. I mean, sometimes it's like intertype is used as an excuse to act dismissive to anyone who doesn't share your view, or something like that, which gets annoying fast.


I don't care for the Democratic Party. I think most Democrats I would be most inclined to consider, even unconsciously, Beta, even though it has nothing to do with Socionics lol. Especially since probably 99% of the population doesn't even know the difference outside of pop-social issues, such as welfare and sexual identity rights and such.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

hornet said:


> And what is a theory if not a map?
> Every theory I know of is a map for me to use.
> If you are not comfortable with using the *map analogy*, then so be it.
> 
> ...


I mean sure. That sounds awesome almost poetic.:encouragement:


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Captain Mclain said:


> I mean sure. That sounds awesome almost poetic.:encouragement:


And the energy saved by it is almost like a symphony!


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Lol, so I leave the boards for a month and it looks like Mr. Loveable is doing just as great a job at always at making everybody dislike him. It's his superpower!


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> True. That is why it is importent to look at how the information metabolism work. People must understand that a loser ILI and a self made happy SEE will never be a good pairing*. Health, mental health, is a big factor that is not counted for in type.


Looking over that it amuses me that you assume that this "self made happy SEE" can't have a positive effect on the health of a "loser ILI". Terrible use of words there, by the way.



Captain Mclain said:


> *By pairing I mean being in a relationship. *They are not on the same level and in the same league*. But putting 2 healthy but conflictor on a stranded island could be a quick way for 2 people to get unhealthy.


Geez, sometimes I like kicking puppies... but that's a pretty brutal thing to say regarding something as changeable and dynamic is mental health/mental state. 



Zamyatin said:


> Lol, so I leave the boards for a month and it looks like Mr. Loveable is doing just as great a job at always at making everybody dislike him. It's his superpower!


C'mon man, I like you, but this is pointless; by calling him a dick you're being a dick.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Looking over that it amuses me that you assume that this "self made happy SEE" can't have a positive effect on the health of a "loser ILI". Terrible use of words there, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, sometimes I like kicking puppies... but that's a pretty brutal thing to say regarding something as changeable and dynamic is mental health/mental state.


The point was, I was trying to say there are more things except age demographic and interest that play a part in compatibility. A duality couple will go towards a healthy state and conflictor will go towards a unhealthy state with time. That is basically how I view those.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> What you're referring to is Normative Ti. It means I give weight to authorities of subject matter experts on scientific and formal logic matters over uneducated, lacking mental faculties, emo kids on the internet. It also means my Ti is fairly average for society. It's cool, though, you can call it Te DS.


OK, I can see the normative Ti too in it. But I still think Te DS as well  I don't have a problem with your self typing.



> "Give me your life log and that of others, because the evidence supplied by Socionics doesn't match with what I want reality to be. I'll accept all parts that do match, though, because I reject the notion of exclusivity."


What life log?

Reality is what it is, it will not change just because you want to imagine it in a different way. No.

What notion of exclusivity?

I'm totally not following your ideas here.




> Gullible? Odd. I decided a week ago to bait you into democratic.


What? Again not following. :laughing:


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> The ITR theories are correct. What is not correct is the self-understanding of individuals who view it. It is easier to pick and choose which parts of Socionics to follow, to place your wants and desires where you please, and disregard other parts, than it is to accept reality and pick the various types for people which make everything line-out with the theory.


Where is the proof that there is always a way to pick types in this way.

Also don't assume that everyone works like you, not everyone picks based on emotional desires.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Where is the proof that there is always a way to pick types in this way.
> 
> Also don't assume that everyone works like you, not everyone picks based on emotional desires.


Uh... TIM is theory of the mind. You accept the TIM based upon external objective data of behaviors and relationships, or you reject the TIM based upon internal and non-verifiable data. You cannot objectively compare cognitions to know where you place versus others, because you cannot verify the others' cognitions. You cannot objectively compare cognitions to external behaviors, because you're comparing theory of the mind to external reality. You can objectively compare external behaviors and speak of them in context to a theory of the mind. Socionic's TIM is the theory of the mind in context. You refer to external behaviors and speak in context of Socionic's TIM, or you reject the TIM and create your own modified version of it. You are doing the former, and doing so in the context that your own understanding of your own cognition is the factual determination to external objective behaviors' accuracy.

I pick based upon verifiable behaviors in relation to descriptions of such in Socionics. You pick based upon your lack of understanding of the proper place of a theory.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Uh... TIM is theory of the mind. You accept the TIM based upon external objective data of behaviors and relationships, or you reject the TIM based upon internal and non-verifiable data. You cannot objectively compare cognitions to know where you place versus others, because you cannot verify the others' cognitions. You cannot objectively compare cognitions to external behaviors, because you're comparing theory of the mind to external reality. You can objectively compare external behaviors and speak of them in context to a theory of the mind. Socionic's TIM is the theory of the mind in context. You refer to external behaviors and speak in context of Socionic's TIM, or you reject the TIM and create your own modified version of it. You are doing the former, and doing so in the context that your own understanding of your own cognition is the factual determination to external objective behaviors' accuracy.
> 
> I pick based upon verifiable behaviors in relation to descriptions of such in Socionics. You pick based upon your lack of understanding of the proper place of a theory.


Skinner used the term "empty organism"; the subject should be treated as if there is nothing inside of it. We have no access to their interior processes so they may as well be "empty". The only thing that can "fill" the organism is the projection of a spectator. Keirsey had a similar approach.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Skinner used the term "empty organism"; the subject should be treated as if there is nothing inside of it. We have no access to their interior processes so they may as well be "empty". The only thing that can "fill" the organism is the projection of a spectator. Keirsey had a similar approach.


The primary issue is that they can't refer to an individual and a group at the same time without confliction (democratic). They can talk about one, or they can talk about the other, but they can never talk about them both being valid at the same time; there is always a "but, individual and group aren't actually accurate, and one is paramount." The Democratic always returns to the individual, and doesn't have the ability to treat a group as an individual nor an individual as a group.

Decided to come back out after the angry kid flipped out on you? Lol.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Uh... TIM is theory of the mind. You accept the TIM based upon external objective data of behaviors and relationships, or you reject the TIM based upon internal and non-verifiable data.


Wtf. Logic fail. You can also reject TIM based on external evidence after properly operationalizing the definitions. I basically ensure the concepts are anchored to tangible reality in a consistent way so I can actually apply the theory, again, in a consistent way, and see if it works. You can go a step beyond this and enforce a consensus to remove the chaos that currently reigns.




> You cannot objectively compare cognitions to know where you place versus others, because you cannot verify the others' cognitions. You cannot objectively compare cognitions to external behaviors, because you're comparing theory of the mind to external reality.


As said above, you can make it objective by creating definitions for the purpose of investigating in an objective fashion. If you cannot do this then the theory will remain in a non-falsifiable form which does not interest me.

I agree you cannot equate cognition with external behaviour. It's clearly not a one to one correspondence. One can cause the other under certain conditions.




> You can objectively compare external behaviors and speak of them in context to a theory of the mind. Socionic's TIM is the theory of the mind in context. You refer to external behaviors and speak in context of Socionic's TIM, or you reject the TIM and create your own modified version of it.


No, socionics is not a complete theory of mind. You need to keep that in mind. It only deals with a fraction of the general issue of how the mind works. And this is fine. You need to be cognizant of the limits of the theory to not apply it in the wrong way.

But yes, you can interpret the external in terms of the context of this theory. That's fine. Again, inside those limitations only. However I still do not follow how you created this false dichotomy of accepting TIM based on external behaviours vs rejecting it based on something else (it was rather vague as to what you meant there).




> You are doing the former, and doing so in the context that your own understanding of your own cognition is the factual determination to external objective behaviors' accuracy.


Wrong. That's not how it is to be done. You are thinking in a really weird way here. The sentence you say here is again a complete logic fail actually. You seem to be putting technical terms together randomly without any sensible logic. It completely fails to make sense.

My understanding of the theory goes way beyond myself and my own cognition and it is not the "factual determination" of anything in a direct fashion. The verification process is more complex than that. The whole theory has to make logical sense first, have everything properly explained with all the logical links in place, it also has to align with other relevant frameworks; then it needs to check out when applying it. If the logical map does not align with reality in this fashion then it's clearly wrong. 

Also if you meant to say that I refer to external behaviours directly - hardly the case. I look at information processing internally and that has a causative link to behaviours but it's not directly behaviour itself.




> I pick based upon verifiable behaviors in relation to descriptions of such in Socionics. You pick based upon your lack of understanding of the proper place of a theory.


You're an idiot. Assuming bs about how I think. It is getting real boring.

Now as for your claim on your picking stuff, yeah, just be careful to not cherrypick based on cognitive bias. Also you have to make sure that the behaviours you've observed actually have a causal link to socionic factors.


----------



## Korvyna (Dec 4, 2009)

Thread warning... If you can't play nice with other members, maybe it's time for some fresh air and frolicking in the fields... Otherwise, we'll start issuing infractions. Thanks!


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Korvyna said:


> Thread warning... If you can't play nice with other members, maybe it's time for some fresh air and frolicking in the fields... Otherwise, we'll start issuing infractions. Thanks!


Awesome :spam:


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Wtf. Logic fail. You can also reject TIM based on external evidence after properly operationalizing the definitions. I basically ensure the concepts are anchored to tangible reality in a consistent way so I can actually apply the theory, again, in a consistent way, and see if it works. You can go a step beyond this and enforce a consensus to remove the chaos that currently reigns.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your definitions aren't socionics definitions. They are internet forum versions.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Your definitions aren't socionics definitions. They are internet forum versions.


Lol another off base guess. I'm not using speculations by forum fans. I'm using the translations from augusta/golihov.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Lol another off base guess. I'm not using speculations by forum fans. I'm using the translations from augusta/golihov.


That's not socionics. Socionics is a field, one that continued after her initial publications.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> That's not socionics. Socionics is a field, one that continued after her initial publications.


Socionics consists of several schools. I found augusta more sensible than gulenko. It's not that complicated, really. I simply do not get into the overly speculative parts.


----------

