Socionics Blog

June 2006

Psychological compatibility research

In March I asked people at the16types forum if they knew of any research on psychological compatibility. I hadn't come across much of anything before that. I was given a link to a research paper called "Assortive Mating and Marital Quality in Newlyweds: A Couple-Centered Approach." This paper confirmed my suspicions — research on psychological compatibility is at a very low stage of development. The furthest researchers have gone at this point is to basically give couples written tests for marital satisfaction and written tests for personality, values, and other traits and see if they can find any correlation between satisfaction levels and how couples' traits match up to each other.

In my opinion, this approach at best only scratches the surface of compatibility. Where are the experiments requiring people to perform various complex tasks together? Where are the medical specialists who should be measuring the level of stress and pleasure hormones in the blood during participants' interaction with each other? Where are the measurements of degree of eye-contact and countless other quantifiable parameters that are directly related to how partners respond to each other on an unconscious level? That is the kind of research I personally would like to be involved in.

Relationships with non-duals

So much is written everywhere about ideal dual relations that the other socionic relations deserve some serious rehabilitation. Augusta herself, after formulating the basic socionics theory, wrote something to the effect of, "with information metabolism being what it is, it's a mystery that people in non-dual relations are able to function at all." And yet they do, and many of them perfectly well, at least to most external observers. Many people in non-dual relationships have no thoughts of changing their partners, and many people in dual relationships have such thoughts. Yes, in each case a certain type of information interchange is taking place, which is described by socionics. But there are often overriding factors or interests that can give meaning to long-term close relationships with people who perhaps do not fulfill all your subconscious longings.

The psyche is remarkably adaptable, and people's consciousness generally extends only to those areas that are discussed verbally within one's close relationships and in one's professional life. If you're an intuiter and have never had the chance to thoroughly discuss all the sensing areas of reality within your close relationships, for the most part you won't even be aware of this "omission." What's more, even if you did have the chance to discuss them in the past, but don't anymore, you will forget about it all the same! This is an amazing consequence of the differentiation of the psyche. In other words, people aren't usually aware of what they are missing out on and hence don't generally consciously suffer from the lack thereof.

This isn't just to say that people in non-dual relations are all suffering without realizing it; this is a much broader issue that affects all people who are living below their potential (and that makes 100% of us). Life is full of imperfections, and we are adapted to get benefit out of imperfect situations. A dual relationship may be a fine psychological acquisition, but there are a host of other areas where the match may be imperfect. Likewise, a partner who is not your dual may be an ideal match in many ways while being non-ideal from a socionics standpoint.

In most cases people seem to have an overarching need that they need to have fulfilled in their close relationships. For example, types' main consideration seems to be that their partner is 'pleasant' to be with in a physiological sense. If this is the case, they are willing to forgive many imperfections. types look for partners who will help them expand their horizons. types need someone to "conquer." types need someone with whom they can build a rational life together. need someone who wlll arouse emotion and accept their devotion. types above all need to know they are needed by their partner. types and types also have overriding considerations when choosing partners, but I'm not able to formulate them right now.

As long as their principle criterion is met, people can be reasonably happy in their relationships and enjoy a sense of personal meaning.* If that consideration is not met, regardless of their partner's type and the underlying information interchange, that personal meaning is lost.

*NOTE: This is most true of those who have other close relationships that mostly satisfy their subconscious information needs — for example, close friends of the same sex who are duals or activators. You've got to get some of it somewhere, or you may well feel miserable.

A socionic view of psychological health

In writing my article today on complementary and resonatory traits in compatible relationships, I stumbled upon a good formulation of psychological well-being and ill-being from a socionics standpoint:

Psychological well-being or health is when a person strives for leadership in the areas they are strong in (i.e. their first and second functions).

Psychological "ill-being" or misfitness is when a person strives for leadership in areas they are weak in.

The second case always produces strain; it is not the natural route for psychic energy to take. The person is probably under the influence of family or group stereotypes, or negative emotions and feelings of worthlessness. Depressed self-esteem often spurs a person to shore up their weaknesses, seek recognition for them, or — in a worst-case scenario — devote themselves to eradicating supposed external sources of their internal pain as soon as they gain positions of influence (Hitler is a classic example of this, as are intuiters with obsessive-compulsive disorder who insist on cleaning everything 10 times).

Psychological health implies accepting others' policy-making in areas one is weak in and striving for recognition for one's strengths. This doesn't mean one should be undiscriminating; one can choose whose policies and decision-making to rely on based on what matches one's own philosophy. The idea is that one shouldn't insist on setting rules in areas they are weak in (for their own good!). Here are some examples of unhealthy behavior:

• an SEE tells everyone else what to believe in, which views are correct, and which are false
• an LII submits his children to grueling physical labor in order to make sure they grow up strong
• an SLE tries to gain recognition as a kind, mild person and a good listener
• an LSE tries to make others think he is first and foremost an artistic, emotionally expressive person