Intertype relations

From Wikisocion

Intertype relations are patterns of functional interaction between two socionic types. There are 14 such patterns, 12 symmetric and 2 asymmetric. A theory of intertype relations is what distinguishes socionics from other Jung-based typologies.

Intertype interaction is an important way to measure the validity of socionics descriptions. For example, descriptions of any function, such as    , must ultimately reflect what it is that types strong in the complementary function (in this case    ) lack, but are drawn to in other people. If     types are actually not drawn to something described in an     description, then that may be a clue that there is something in the description that is "not actually    ."

In the framework of Model A, information of a certain kind (i.e. the corresponding information element) is conveyed and perceived using the function that maps to it in a person's Model A. Their ability to deal with that information over the long term and their default psychological reactions to such information will depend largely on the placement of that function.

A general rule to help understand intertype relations is that each type unconsciously expects the rest of the world to accept his declarations and decisions coming from his Ego functions, and to 'dualize' him by providing him with support for his Super-Id functions. To a large degree intertype relations can be understood simply in terms of how well they are able to fulfill these unconscious expectations, with complementary Ego functions generally having a positive effect on how long the relationship lasts and how deeply it develops.

In English-language socionics, there are a number of competing terms for intertype relations. The most accepted ones are used here.

• Identity
• Duality
• Activation / Activity
• Mirror
• Kindred / Comparative / Congenerity
• Semi-duality / Partial duality
• Business / Look-a-Like / Cooperation
• Mirage / Illusionary
• Super-ego
• Extinguishment / Contrary
• Quasi-identity
• Conflict

Asymmetric relations:

• Benefit / Request
• Supervision

[edit] Intertype relations chart

[edit] Categories of relations

[edit] Symmetric relations

Symmetric relations are relations where the functions of Person 1 map to those of Person 2 the same way that the functions of Person 2 map to Person 1.

Example: SLE has     and     (ILI's ego elements) in the fifth and eighth functions, respectively. Likewise, ILI has     and     in the fifth and eighth functions. Therefore the ILI and SLE are Semi-duals.

[edit] Asymmetric relations

Asymmetric relations are relations where the functions of Person 1 map to those of Person 2 differently from the way that the functions of Person 2 map to Person 1.

Example: EII has     and     (SEI's ego elements) in the sixth and seventh functions, respectively. However, SEI has     and     in the eighth and fifth functions. Therefore EII is Benefactor to SEI, but SEI is Beneficiary to EII.

[edit] Relations of attraction

are between a dynamic and a static.

[edit] Relations of repulsion

are between two statics or two dynamics.

[edit] Intertype interaction and relationships

It is common for people to get into the habit of equating intertype interaction (or 'relations,' as it is usually called) with the more everyday concept of relationship. Here is what Aleksandr Bukalov and Olga Karpenko of the International Institute of Socionics had to say about the difference between information interaction between types and relationships:

A.B. - Anyway, Aushra wrote several more works, such as The Socion, The Theory of Intertype Relations, and lengthy descriptions of several types, where she examined in detail how the information model of the psyche works for each type, how intertype relations work and how they manifest themselves — or, to be precise, "intertype information interaction," out of which, on a subjective level, arise relationships. That's how we've formulated it in recent years.

O.K. - In order to separate relationships from their information component.

A.B. - Yes, information interaction and how relationships feel subjectively are not exactly the same. Aushra mixed the two, but that's natural. [1]

[edit] External links

• Theory of Intertype Relations, Intertype Relations (descriptions), Groups of Intertype Relations, Towards a Typology of Relationships by Rick DeLong