Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Kindred
¶
See also
Kindred observations <kindred_observations>
Back to
Intertype relations <intertype>
Introduction
¶
In
kindred
, or
comparative
, relations, partners have the same
leading function, but opposing creative functions. The common leading
function makes establishing a connection and understanding the other
person easy, while the different creative functions reflects different
ideas about how knowledge and skills should be applied. Spending time
together intensifies partners’ leading function behavior, which is
enjoyable at first, but can lead to exhaustion if goes on for too long.
Kindred partners typically find each other engaging company for
occasional focused conversations or intense interaction (which may not
necessarily appear intense externally, especially for leading
or
types).
Partners typically find that their primary goals in life are alike in
many respects and respect the other person’s basic attitudes, which are
quite like their own, even if the details differ.
Informal communication flows easily, but competition for influence may
ensue if partners spend too much time in the same group. Partners may
have difficulty dividing roles when trying to work together. Neither one
is able to be much of an assistant to the other, as there is little if
any natural complementarity of behavior. As a result of frustrated
“dual-seeking” expectations, partners at work often end up criticizing
each other for the very inclinations they share themselves: leading
types may criticize their kindred partners for laziness, leading
types -
for taking forever to get back to them about important matters of
business, leading
types - for being a control freak, or leading
types -
for being on a power trip. This applies equally to
identity
relations.
Ideological differences based on opposing creative functions can also
arise; for instance, an
LSI
and
LII
may have similar
views, but the LSI might want to “impose his views on others,” while the
LII is “unwilling to do anything.” Or, an
ILE
and
IEE
might be interested in the same activity and want to build
some kind of community, but the ILE might want to formally establish an
organization or administrative center, while the IEE insists on keeping
the community movement informal. Or, an
SLE
might insist on
increasing bureaucratic structure in an effort to manage an endeavor,
while an
SEE
insists on exercising personal influence to get
things done. Until one of the approaches wins out, or a higher authority
puts each person in his or place, the conflict may seem unresolvable.
In an atmosphere where work and cooperation are not expected, these
relations can develop into friendship. However, if forced to work too
closely together, these types could end up in a battle of equals. They
will find the other to match them point for point. Outsiders will try as
they may but will have little effect on the ensuing conflict, since the
kindreds have almost no communication difficulties and thus will likely
know exactly what the problem is. Kindreds have very little pity for
each other in general, but when getting along they can connect, finding
fondness through the
suggestive function
and even help the other out a
little using their
demonstrative function
. However, they eventually
tire of the demands made on it if they are not sufficiently polite about
it.
Descriptions by various authors
¶
Valentina Meged, Anatoly Ovcharov
There relations are good for discussion of common topics of interest,
however, they are complicated at closer interpersonal distances.
Partners understand each other’s motives well as they have similar aims,
however, their approaches to dealing with their problems are very
different. They are thus inclined to seek advice from each other and
look for compromise. If this does not occur, it can inspire mutual
distrust. Need for autonomy and freedom from each other can arise.
Kindred partners are well aware of each other’s shortcomings, however,
they often lack tact in judging each other’s abilities. They can exert
emotional pressure on each other demanding that their partner follows a
specific course of action that they see as the only correct course.
Actions of kindred partner sometimes seem as if lacking in common sense
and predictability. These relations are worsened by the routine. New
impressions and experiences improve these relations. Behavior of your
kindred partner in contact with other people is usually appealing.
I.D. Vaisband, publications on Socionics
It can feel like there is not enough sincerity in these relations.
Partners can perceive one another as egoistical, which in reality isn’t
always true. In some areas, kindred partners see the world very
similarly. These relations can be very productive in work if partners
have similar interests. If they have little in common, these relations
can be unpleasant, irritating, and abrasive.
O.B. Slinko, “The key to heart - Socionics”
These relations are characterized by commonalities in world view, since
kindred partners have same leading function, however their implementing
functions are antagonistic to each other. Thus, even though they feel
some measure of likeness, they do not understand each other’s actions
and may perceive them as egoistical. In addition, there can be
competition in the areas of leading function. Kindred partners usually
acknowledge each other and treat each other by accepted norms conduct,
but they are unlikely to show sincere interest in each other’s problems.
The interest of a kindred partner in yourself seems superficial. Thus,
these relations are not distinguished by interpersonal warm.
R.K. Sedih, “Informational psychoanalysis”
Ego - Ego plus Superego. Once again, the more developed the
personalities of the partners, the more they have in common regarding
their interests and work, the more interesting, comfortable and
beneficial these relations can be. In cases where both partners are
poorly self-realized and unstable, they will often affect each other’s
weak spots. However, this rarely leads to very negative consequences.
Because their worldviews partially coincide, partners can easily reach a
compromise if they strive for it. Light frictions in communication
usually do not let kindred partners get too close. Partners usually keep
some distance and from this distance they can admire one another and be
useful for each other. If they try to compete, this presents an
opportunity for development. However, here they run the risk of
offending the “child” block in one another, which is not easily
forgiven. Making up usually happens quickly, conflicts are kept under
control. In these relations the desire to measure another by your own
standards usually disappears, and should be avoided in any case.
Laima Stankevichyute “Intertype relations”
When both partners are ethical, they suffer from an excess of passions
and emotions. When both partners are logical, their relationship is in
constant state of tension, which brings irritation. This is a
relationship in which there is lack of sincerity; partners seem selfish
to each other.
A.V. Bukalov, G. Boiko, “Why Saddam Hussein made a mistake, or what is
Socionics”
These relations are characterized by the fact that partners seem
partially similar and in words understand each other very well, like to
discuss similar topics and often have many common interests. However, as
soon as it comes to practical implementation of their mutual goals and
projects, each finds that the other acts in contrary ways, which is both
surprising and hurtful. In such situations, each is then inclined to
view the other akin to a traitor: “But we have agreed! Now look at what
he’s doing.” How one acts is not how the other acts, but they cannot and
do not know how to act otherwise. It happens that a seemingly harmless
remark or observation made by one partner deeply hurts another: “Oh,
what a beautiful suit” - says IEE to his ILE friend, ” Did you put it on
to impress that girl you mentioned last week?” This makes ILE feel very
awkward because relationships are very delicate subject to him,
meanwhile IEE feels perfectly at ease voicing this subject. At the same
time any doubts or criticism of logic in reasoning or behavior by ILE
will sound hurtful to his IEE kindred partner. If they keep this in mind
beforehand, they can avoid many misunderstandings. Due to many
similarities, kindred partners often strike up friendships, start
dating, form families. With mutual respect people get on well with each
other, but conflicts and mutual irritation will arise from time to time
in this kind of partnership.
Victor Gulenko “Criteria of reciprocity”
Monotonous interference
Partner seems attractive only from a distance. In close contact, after
exchanging information relations begin to feel boring. Tension and
irritation build up because of inability to break the monotony of these
relations. In these relations, it is also difficult to fully disclose
yourself. There is some mutual interference in joint ventures since
partners follow different methods of implementation and modes of action.
This can lead to disappointments and loss of respect for each other.
Binary signs of intertype relations
Kindred relations tire the partners with sameness and uniformity of
temperament and require some distance and constant inflow of new
impressions, experiences, acquaintances. There is nothing worse for
kindred partners than to get lock up in four walls with no fresh
experiences and information. Doors open to the external world, mutual
interests in innovations and current events will ensure a more
extraverted approach that these relations require.
In kindred relations there is little interest in discussing events that
involve only one of the partners. Each other’s stories are perceived as
boring, and instead their attention turns to the world and people around
them. The more diverse, the more interest-inspiring their surrounding
environment is, the better the relations will be in this pair. In such
case, they can have involving discussions about all that is new and
interesting, exciting discoveries, sensations, developments.
Kindred relations are characterized by the fact that the partners have
similar aims and goals, but attempt to reach them in contrary ways. Over
time, kindred types start to diverge more and more, adopting opposing
positions. They are usually well aware of their differences and
contradictions, but cannot immediately resolve them. In these relations
reciprocity is enhanced if partners share feelings towards someone else,
a third person.
While making joint decisions, there will be a measure of strain between
them. Periodically, there are minor unmotivated outbreaks of frustration
and anger, which are followed by sorting out relations and trying to
find the causes of the quarrel. Kindred partners discharge their
tensions with these outbreaks and start a new round of communication,
making themselves to forget previous differences. In such a pair
imposing concrete decisions and actions is not recommended - only
general advice concerning the subject mater will be received positively.
Kindred partners seek to hold on to the positions that they have
attained. Despite interest in pursuits and initiatives of each other,
both keep to their own opinions. While they are similar on the outside,
kindred partners are very different on the inside. Despite welcoming
refreshing and new outside impressions, each expects the other to return
to their usual state of things; transition to another form of relations
and new “rules” is painful.
Advice on getting along
It is best to not rationalize these relations such that they can evolve
freely without any limitations and constrictions. Do not try to impose
your own point of view, rather try to refer to your partner for advice.
Once you have become accustomed to each other, do not change your habits
and nature of your relations. Do not experiment and try to unbalance
each other. Do not irritate or bore each other other. If irritation
arises, temporarily increase the psychological distance.
In kindred relations it is difficult to realize complicated plans.
Partners aim to maintain autonomy, and within these conditions they can
learn quite a bit from each other. Do not try to control the actions of
your partner. Without granting each other a modicum of trust, these
relations cannot be stable.
Kindred relations are turned to the world outside them. Thus, try to
attend new events and meet new people, and arrive at same conclusions
about them.
V.V. Gulenko, A.V. Molodtsev, “Introduction to socionics”
These are relations of distant relatives who talk about formally
appropriate and necessary topics, observing the rules of propriety and
hospitality, but they do not wish to delve into the details of their
relations with each other. In the passing of time, these discussions
start to get boring. Impression is formed that your partner is trying to
solve problems starting from wrong premises or in wrong order and does
not wish to acknowledge your point of view. This is why partners strive
to reach a compromise, some mid-point. In company of other people these
relations noticeably improve because your partner’s contact with other
people is usually perceived as appealing and admirable. In this sense
kindred partners can learn a few things from one another. Where one can
learn to be more measured, the other can learn to be more active.
Kindred partners can turn to each other for advice, but then it often
happens that the person providing advice starts to use newly obtained
information for his own purposes while the other person is left with
nothing from this interaction. Same events partners view from different
points of view - as if it would benefit the other and harm oneself. Thus
partners often seem to each other as egoistical, though they never
openly voice this. In family these relations can be more heavy than
relations of supervision as they inspire distrust and do not yield a
sense of own worth. Methods of accomplishing the same work are also not
the same and bring about even more misunderstanding. Their most
developed behavioral functions are inverse of each other. Both partners
feel that they are on equal footing, especially if both are introverts,
so competition in such situations is rare. However, when one presides
over the other this can lead to disagreements and conflicts, especially
with unfavorable subtypes.
Ekaterina Filatova “Art of understanding yourself and others”
Both partners perceive the world as the same due to having base function
as common. In cases where it comes to actual cooperation, these
relations can seem not as fruitful. If partners have common interests,
then they will take on the care for each other’s weakest functions.
Eugene Gorenko, Vladimir Tolstikov, “Nature of self”
Partners in may ways resemble each other. If directed towards
collaborative aims they will be tactful and polite with each other.
However, due to internal differences, these types will look at the world
in very different manners, approach same events from different points of
view, in this case hurting each other’s weak functions. Here everything
depends on distance, on sense of tact, on the desire of both partners to
maintain positive relations. Also it is very important that the
partner’s interest coincide.
Sergei Ganin
Homoverted - Symmetrical - Rhythmical
These are relations of deceptive similarity. Comparative partners talk
about similar things, have similar interests, obey the norms of
politeness and hospitality towards each other but they never really show
an interest in each others problems. After a while these relations can
become boring and stagnant. When comparative partners are on the same
level in a hierarchy, they can coexist quite peacefully. Once one
partner becomes superior to the other, they may have serious
disagreements and conflicts. Comparative partners look at the same
questions from very different angles. One partner feels as if the other
is in their opinion trying to solve the same problem in an impractical
manner. Moreover, partners are not happy to acknowledge each other’s
different point of view. This may cause great misunderstandings between
partners, especially when applied to methods of working and as a result
partners usually try to compromise.
When in company, Comparative relations can improve a little. The reason
for this is that the behavior of one partner in respect to other people
usually appears to the other partner as interesting and worthwhile.
Moreover, partners have a good chance to learn from each other how to
better improve their social interactions.
When Comparative partners ask each other for advice, the adviser often
finds their own advice quite useful for themselves. As a result the
person who asked for advice usually leaves with nothing. Comparative
partners may view each other as selfish and egoistic, however they do
not try to clarify this point to each other. In a family environment
these relations are very heavy, as they can create a mistrust between
partners and do not allow them to feel their own significance.
Kindred pairs
¶
ILE
and
IEE
SEI
and
SLI
ESE
and
EIE
LII
and
LSI
SLE
and
SEE
IEI
and
ILI
LIE
and
LSE
ESI
and
EII
Theoretical properties of kindred relations
¶
Kindred types share Rational / Irrational and Extraversion /
Introversion
Jungian dichotomies
. Irrational
kindred pairs differ on Logic / Ethics, while rational kindred pairs
differ on Sensing / Intuition.
Model A
¶
Functions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 reflect on functions 1, 4, 3, 2, 5,
8, 7, 6.
Functions of
Model A
¶
Partner 1
Partner 2
base function
base function
role function
role function
suggestive function
suggestive function
ignoring function
ignoring function
creative function
vulnerable function
mobilizing function
demonstrative function
Reinin traits
¶
As with all non-identical types, kindred types have exactly 7
Reinin traits
in common, with the remaining 8 not in common.
Rational kindred pairs:
In Common
:
extraversion and introversion
·
rationality and irrationality
·
static and dynamic
·
ethics and logic
·
yielding and obstinate
·
constructivist and emotivist
·
merry and serious
Not in Common
:
sensing and intuition
·
carefree and farsighted
·
tactical and strategic
·
judicious and decisive
·
democratic and aristocratic
·
positivist and negativist
·
process and result
·
asking and declaring
Irrational kindred pairs:
In Common
:
extraversion and introversion
·
rationality and irrationality
·
static and dynamic
·
sensing and intuition
·
carefree and farsighted
·
tactical and strategic
·
judicious and decisive
Not in Common
:
ethics and logic
·
yielding and obstinate
·
constructivist and emotivist
·
merry and serious
·
democratic and aristocratic
·
positivist and negativist
·
process and result
·
asking and declaring
External links
¶
Comparative Relations
by
Sergei Ganin