Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Intertype Relations by Filatova
¶
Warning
This page or section
needs work
.
This is the description of intertype relationships with supporting
stories gathered and compiled by
Ekaterina Filatova
. Sections 1-9 have been improved from
machine translation; sections 10-15 need further work.
Chapter 1. Dual relationships.
¶
As has already been mentioned, this is the most favorable combination of
sociotypes. These relations are called dualization, or full
complementarity. Obviously for any of us the most favorable relationship
forms with the person who has a complementary asymmetry of functions.
What is the meaning of the above statements? Mainly that the individual
meets a partner whose energy support (by strong function) he readily
accepts via his suggestive function, and vice versa - he himself
supports the suggestive channel of his partner. Such complementary types
in socionics are called duals. Information coming from dual partner is
seen as support, correction, willingness to facilitate resolution of any
difficult task. At the same time, neither of the partners feels the
pressure on their vulnerable function, because here the orientation of
functions of the 2nd and 3rd channels is different.
Thus, in each dual pair, in the first two channels there are four
complementary functions. Two dual pairs with the same set of functions
form a quadra. Total Total number of quadra is four; in literature one
can find their names: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or simply I, II, III,
IV, respectively.
Below we refer to the leading elements for all four Quadra:
1st Quadra (Alpha)
Don Quixote, ILE (Ne-Ti) - Dumas, SEI (Si-Fe) ; Hugo, ESE (Fe-Si)
- Robespierre, LII (Ti-Ne)
2nd Quadra (Beta)
Hamlet, EIE (Fe-Ni) - Maxim, LSI (Ti- Se) ; Zhukov, SLE (Se-Ti) -
Yesenin, IEI (Ni-Fe)
3rd Quadra (Gamma)
Napoleon (Se-Fi) - Balzac (Ni-Te) ; Jack (Te-Ni) - Dreiser (Fi-Se)
4th Quadra (Delta)
Stierlitz (Te-Si) - Dostoevsky (Fi-Ne) ; Huxley (Ne-Fi) - Gabin
(Si-Te)
In each quadra, the types are arranged in such a way that none of them
exert pressure on “painful” functions of others - to the contrary,
information sent by the strong functions of any partner is perceived as
support by others. Thus, the quadra provides more complete cooperation
than an isolated dual pair: psychophysical regulation in this group is
by far the best and all of participants have a sense of mutual
understanding and support … But back to duals.
It is easy to see that duals are different from each other in several
characteristics: extraversion - introversion, ethics - logic, sensation
- intuition. However, on the aspect of rationality - irrationality they
are the same. It turns out that in these three features duals complement
each other, while similarity in rationality or irrationality ensures the
same rhythms of life. In each quadra, there is one rational and one
irrational pair.
We now turn to the examples of dual relationships.
Dual friendships easily originate already in childhood. Here is a
description of this friendship Maxim-Hamlet, from Hamlet’s point of
view:
Hamlet - Maxim (EIE-LSI)
Valerik is my friend; from childhood we couldn’t do without one another.
When we met, we could play together for a long time. True, sometimes it
seemed to me that he would offend me, because he did not always agree
with me. Then I demonstratively would leave and go home, but soon our
quarrel would be forgotten.
In high school, without noticing it, I was very dependent on Valerik,
felt protected by his side. In the sports section, I agreed to go with
him but could only play only on the same team with him; and if it was
needed to make a trip to town to buy something - then again only with
him. He had difficult time befriending others guys. I always had to help
him in this. All the holidays and birthdays he again went only together
with me.
Later, when we were teenagers, it could be that we would criticize one
another: I was critical of him for his predictability and his desire to
be always right, he on his end thought I was too thoughtless and
pretentious. Nevertheless, we remained the closest of friends. We always
really needed one another, because with him I could take off the tragic
mask, and he, in turn, could feel comfortable and open up his heart
without fear of any betrayal. Positive aspect of our friendship was the
fact that we were happy to listen to each other: I was happy to listen
to his successes in programming, and he - about my new love. I myself,
of course, was not very interested in programming. But when Valerik
talked about it, I would be lit up by his ideas and experience it
together with him. The same can be said about his relation towards my
“little tragedies” … We were very fortunate that during the school
years we could be together.
In this story, as we see, dual relationships are presented in a, so to
say, ideal, perhaps the refined version. All the best aspects of these
relations have manifested in this case: a successful combination of
temperaments, support of the weak features, intelligent and productive
mutual criticism.
The latter is particularly interesting and wonderful in dual pairs. For
example, a scene between fellow students Jack and Dreiser.
Dreiser - Jack (ESI-LIE)
Many think that our Oleg (Jack) is a conflicting person, but with Alex
(Dreiser), they have never had a fight during all the years of studying
- they study, prepare for tests, and relax together.
One time, they went for a swim to the Ob Sea (Novosibirsk Reservoir).
Oleg left his clothes on the bench somewhere far away from the shore,
and Alex - took his clothes with him and laid them on the sand near the
water. After they had their fill, they left the water happily. Oleg went
to get his things, but they went missing! Clothing, watches, money,
documents, keys … Only shoes were left.
- Oh, how cool, I’ve never robbed! - Oleg exclaimed in excitement. Alex
did not share his enthusiasm: - Well, you unlucky bum, what is to be
done with you now? - Come on, lets look in the bushes, maybe they are
there! - Uhu. As if they left you anything.
So they went back to the boat station and called the police, which
arrived after three hours. They were taken to the police station, where
Oleg made a stunning impression on everyone with his beach looks
combined with an ever enduring sense of optimism. Alex trudged home to
bring Oleg at least something to wear.
Then they started to make an inventory of the missing items. Attendant
policeman asks Oleg:
- What did you have? - Mm-mm … Pants. - What kind? - Well, simple,
black. - And approximately how much did they cost? - Fifty rubles -
shrugs Oleg. - What? These pants today cost no less than a hundred! -
resented Alex
In this short story, it is easily to track the complementary effects of
the opposites, which are typical for dual pairs. Discontented grumbling
of Dreiser is nothing more nor less than show of care about his carefree
companion, who, of course, understands this well, so that accusations of
this kind, even if reciprocal, never take the form of conflict.
Especially beneficial and healing are dual relations within one’s family
circle. Such arrangement creates an atmosphere conducive not only to the
dual pair, but also for other people around them (especially if parents
of the spouses are also duals). Here is the story of such dual pair
(Zhukov - husband, wife Yesenin).
Esenin - Zhukov (IEI-SLE)
I know Irina for 15 years. She grew up in a very conflicting family, was
a very sensitive, vulnerable, nervous person. Always and towards
everyone she would show her “thorns” - like a hedgehog. I knew that she
has gotten married a few years ago, and recently we ran into each other.
She said that she lives in her husband’s family. First year she cried a
lot, with or without cause, although relatives treated her very well and
tried to support and to help her. Even this alerted her, since she
always expected criticism and frustration - but in response she was only
encouraged. So it went for about a year. Then she calmed down, started
believing in the goodness and friendliness of people around her, became
less guarded and “prickly”, started accepting the help offered, and
finally has learned how to live in an atmosphere of psychological
comfort. Now she is a radiant and joyful person. Even her gait and her
facial expressions have changed … At our first meeting I didn’t even
recognize her!
Now lets think: does the fact of duality guarantee conflict-free,
supportive relationships?
The author of this book once had a chance to observe an interaction
between two duals that almost ended in tears. Strict, self-possessed,
puritanically brought up man of logical type attended a house party
thrown together by a frivolous, greedy, and arrogant woman, who happened
to be his dual type. She pursued him all night, made playful allusions,
clung to him talking about the most trivial topics, in the end forcing
him to finally flee. “Is this really my dual? - he asked me the next
day. - No, she cannot be! “
Obviously, the success of any relations (dual included), will be
influenced by upbringing… But the matter is not only in upbringing.
Personal relationships - is a special realm, where a lot depends on the
personal qualities and will of the individual. However, the situation
changes dramatically as soon as we take a look at professional and
workplace relations. Here, whether we like it or not, the main defining
element will be correspondence of sociotype to the nature of the work:
this factor directly influences relations between people at the
workplace.
Lets imagine ourselves Zhukov as a director of a company. Let’s say he
needs an administrative assistant whose duties would include organizing
receptions of colleagues from other institutions, to create a
comfortable, soft, pleasant atmosphere in the waiting room of his rather
rough boss, tell him in time how to best get around the “sharp corners”,
where to start a conversation with his competitor to achieve the desired
result, etc. It is clear that in this case his dual is quite appropriate
for this role, that is, a person who will complement Zhukov’s weaknesses
with his own strong qualities (in this case Esenin is needed).
What if this same manager needs an employee whose duties would include
the introduction of this company’s products to other industries? Then he
needs an assertive and energetic figure, for which role Yesenin would
not be suitable. If, for purely formal socionics reasons, we will offer
this director for this position his dual, Esenin, then, most likely,
such recommendation will lead to a dispute: active and operative Zhukov
will hardly be pleased with soft, yielding, relaxed and somewhat
disorganized assistant who does not meet the required qualities of this
position of “pusher-salesman”.
Another example: lets assume that the head of the design team is an
employee of type Maxim. If the objective of the group is to develop a
new engine, a good addition to supervisor-Maxim will undoubtedly be his
dual - Hamlet, because he is able to offer an entirely new idea, look at
the problem from an unexpected direction, point away from the trivial
solutions. Maxim will further move this work to creation of a concrete
design, then organize construction of a prototype, “polish” the desired
methods of operation. This is another example when partners effectively
complement each other in mutual work.
Now imagine what happens when Maxim, as a worker on the assembly line,
as his partner chooses someone of his dual type Hamlet? It’s unlikely
that Hamlet, who easily takes offense and then can deliberately leave,
will be appropriate here. In this case, conflict is inevitable.
Thus, we see that the dualization of itself does not guarantee a good
partnership, especially if one of the two partners found himself or
herself having to work in the area where he is lacking (Esenin - as
assertive salesman, Hamlet - as assembly line worker).
Chapter 2. Semi-dual Relations.
¶
Just as in duality, in these relations support is given from the 1st
channel to the 4th channel of both partners, but there is no
compensation on the other two functions. Thus when semi-dual partners
meet, make plans, talk over their matters, everything is fine, no worse
than in dual relations. But when they try to implement their plans, it
appears that there is same area where both are weak (albeit in different
ways: e/i “-version” of functions of the third channel is different),
according to this, on these functions partners cannot effectively help
each other. Since there is no full compensation, at sufficiently close
distance there may be certain mutual disappointment.
Consider these examples semi-dual relations.
Robespierre talks about his field of type Hamlet:
Robespierre - Hamlet (LII-EIE)
He is a musician, plays in an ensemble, never lacks in creative
suggestions - if only to draw attention to himself. He can even stand on
his head. Or, for example, will declare himself the author of some
popular song. Later, however, he started writing songs himself. It
should be noted that we always had topics for a conversation.
We discussed everything - from yesterday’s trip to the movies to the
nature of the universe. We came up with all sorts of projects and
undertakings. Each of them we would discuss up to the minutest detail,
but we have never been able to move forward in their implementation
beyond making preparations.
In this story, these two friends are obviously attracted to each other’s
strong functions (extraverted ethics of Hamlet, introverted logic of
Robespierre). However, practical implementation of any project is
impossible without strong sensing support. For both, sensing functions
are weak, thus their interaction and conversations, except for pleasant
experience, do not achieve anything constructive.
Here is another story by a girl of type Don Quixote about living in a
dorm room with a friend of type Gabin.
Don Quixote - Gabin (ILE-SLI)
I lived with Irina in the same room for nearly six months. I respect her
a lot, and her opinion to me is very valuable. This is the only person
with whom I could talk about all my joys and sorrows, being absolutely
sure that she will understand me and calm me down. After having to spend
three months apart, I was looking forward to when she will be back.
Finally she entered the room, looked at it, and said, “In general, one
can live here …” And I thought with relief that once again, finally,
next to me will be my practical roommate, that she will not allow me to
break away from reality and get lost in their own imaginative ideas.
This situation is simple and clear: the intuitive Don Quixote, of
course, does not find it easy to resolve everyday problems, which are
associated with living in a dormitory. Help of a sensing type Gabin in
this is invaluable. Besides, Gabin, with vulnerable ethics is usually
very attentive and listens to other people’s outpouring of emotions, and
in this he is a very desirable and comfortable partner.
Strictly speaking, intertype relations should be considered separately
for each pair of types and in different situations: at work, at home, on
vacation … Each case represents mutual “work” of some specific
functions, which is why the nature of communication may differ
substantially in different conditions for the same pair of types.
Here is a story of types Napoleon and Esenin - girls who lived in the
same dorm room.
Girl of type Esenin told this story:
Esenin - Napoleon (IEI-SEE)
She immediately attracted me with her sociability, helped me become
closer to many people. She always lacked a listener, and I can spend
hours listening to other people’s stories. Soon we were spending all our
free time together. At night, we could not sleep until we talked enough.
To her I go for any advice: which thing is better to buy and where it is
most convenient to do so. She knows how to count money, and for me it
evaporates without a trace, don’t know where. She will gladly tell how
it’s best to arrange the furniture in a room, which curtains to hang. I
can spend hours thinking about it, but will not do the actual task.
I am much better than her at seeing how her relations will develop with
another guy she is seeing.
Sometimes we talk about it for hours. There were times when I had to
predict a bleak ending of her next interest … This, of course, was
pointless to tell her, she never listens to me, and only after it
happened exactly as the script I’ve described, she said with regret:
“Pity I didn’t listen to you back then!” But after a while all it
happened all over again.
When I have exams, we had barely see one another. Usually I sit home
alone and study for the exam. Carefully write notes. She runs around the
dorm and collects notes for those who have already done the exam.
Here again we see support coming from partner’s strong function: the
ability of sensing type Napoleon to choose and buy appropriate things
and Esenin’s intuitive ability to predict the development of events.
However, in those areas that require mutual work (in this case -
preparing for exams), each acts alone by their own methods, without
providing each other with any support.
Here is another example of semi-dual relations - Jack and Dostoevsky.
Jack tells the story:
Jack - Dostoevsky (LIE-EII)
Getting accepted to the university, we settled with him in the same
room. At first, everything was great. We made plans for arranging our
room. He offered: “I have paint for the floor and wallpaper. We’ll
immediately do the repairs.” I really liked such enthusiasm and I
replied in kind: “I have an electric stove and a frying pan. We’ll buy a
pot, a bowl and all the other kitchen stuff… for starters, we’ll paint
the floor and the window … ”  and so on.
The first two weeks of our life together were just great, we understood
each other perfectly. We both loved the work, doing something useful.
But then in the implementation of our plans we ran into some problems.
He is a stubborn person and does not like to be told what to do.
One day we went to the grocery store and bought everything needed, and I
also wanted to buy some apples. He grimaced and replied that he didn’t
want to, and the price is too high. I tried to persuade him  he stood
his ground I decided to act independently in this situation, went out
and bought some apples. He must have felt offended, but didn’t show it
and didn’t say a word, and yet I felt a spark of dislike run between us.
He doesn’t show his feelings, I find it difficult to restrain myself, I
am used to being around many people. He is used to swallowing insults
and separating himself with a wall of reserve, and I am a very
straightforward person and believe that any misunderstanding it is
better to resolve right away, not to leave around any hard feelings.
A new incident occurred during his duty in the kitchen. The whole week
he prepared the same porridge. Finally, I asked him to make something
else, but he replied that he doesn’t want to change his plans for today.
Well, no then no. I fried some potatoes for myself and then made some
jokes, which upset him completely. Our relationship has become very
strained. I was growing tired of this. Struggling to be tactful, I made
an attempt to reconcile and find out what’s wrong. He gladly responded
to my suggestion. We had a good talk, and our frictions were smoothed
out, but I’m not sure that there won’t be problem again …
Please note: here both partners have sensing functions in 3rd,
vulnerable channel. It is clear that conflicts arise over practical
issues: both respond inadequately to the situation. Dostoevsky, fearing
that he won’t have enough money to last the semester, doesn’t want to
spend extra on apples and cooks the cheapest food  porridge, thus
unpleasantly affecting the sensory experiences of his roommate. And his
roommate, in turn, being a decisive competitive type, strives to “win”
in all their domestic issues and, thus, also hurts the vulnerable third
function of his partner, who in principle cannot stand any coercion.
Chapter 3. Mirage Relations.
¶
Here, just like in the case of duality, partners are able to help each
other through the connections between 2nd and 3rd channels. However,
there is no complementary connection between 1st and 4th channels. This
means that it is easier for partner to maintain good relations in
matters that are not very serious  for example, holiday and leisure
time.
In these relations, it’s not readily evident that the 4th channel of
each partner is not receiving any support. Generally these relations are
quite pleasant, but no more than that. The strong functions of partners
are essentially the same, just of different orientation, thus the strong
function of a partner is not appreciated (as in “I can do the same”),
while the weak function is presented in an unfavorable light. Thus
partners perceive each other as not exceptionally significant or
authoritative, but charming and captivating, with whom it would be nice
to spend some time with but not get into any important ventures.
Exceptions are situations when mutual activity falls completely into the
area of influence of 1st channel. In family life, these relations can be
quite favorable, especially for those for whom the factor of
psychological comfort is primary.
Let us refer to a few examples.
Don Quixote talks of his relations with Esenin:
Don Quixote - Esenin (ILE-IEI)
We first met a few months ago, but already know each other well and
we’re become much attached to one another. We have great rapport, many
common aspirations and interests, though it is difficult to fully share
his love of art, and for him - my addiction to systematic thinking.
We love to philosophize together, to talk about the meaning of life and
love - and then laugh at our own discussions. We also work together
productively. I am attracted to his philosophical mindset, his ability
to offer support in difficult times - it helps me better understand my
place in life. On the other hand, I think he likes me for my calm
optimism, a kind of free thinking and abstract humor.
This passage illustrates well the support of partners for each other’s
weak functions: Esenin helps Don Quixote cope with emotional
experiences, and Don Quixote helps him in return with logical analysis.
Note that both of them at this point don’t need to address any issues
related to sensing: comfort, well-being, health - this part of the life
is of little concern for them. As for the good results of their joint
work - here, of course, comes into play effect of strong intuitive
functions of different orientation, such that the partners are
guaranteed to come to the best intuitive approach to any problem.
In general, it can be surmised that these people exist comfortably with
each other. Comfort of life together was expressed well by a 50-year-old
Don Quixote, who defined his relationship with his wife, IEI, in the
following manner: “It’s as if I’m walking in timeworn slippers” … Now
let us consider the following example of a relationship between types
Stirlitz and Robespierre.
Shtirlits - Robespierre (LSE-LII)
My brother’s type is Robespierre. We always liked being in each other’s
company, despite the fact that he was older than me by 11 years.
Sometimes we fight, but our offenses never lasted more than a day.
My brother is very knowledgeable of history.
He likes to test me  intentionally, to expose my ignorance of some fact
and then to criticize me for not disrespectful attitude towards
humanities. Recently, he seriously tried to convince me of the existence
of a direct link between the Trojan horse and the Roman Emperor Trajan,
but I did not let him make fun of myself. I also like to catch him on
his ignorance in areas of physics and mathematics, but in general, we
have a good relationship. My parents have always said that we cannot
exist without each other.
The above example confirms, as in the first case, that good
understanding exists between partners, the ease of communication, the
lack of a good reason for quarrels.
Here is another example of this type of relations:
Huxley - Balzac (IEE-ILI)
My mom is of type Balzac, and me  Huxley. Our relations with her can be
considered good only on the surface. They are good, if we are relaxing
together, or having fun at some event. When it comes to work, quarrels
often break out, as if you’re not talking with a close friend but with
the “devil incarnate.”
Our outlook on life is so different that there is no point of contact.
She sees everything in the worst possible light, while I, on the
contrary, I prefer to look at everything with humor and light irony. For
her, the main thing is an accurately done job, but for me - a good mood.
In this case, we see that these relations are deprived not only comfort,
but also lacking in most basic understanding, and this is in formal
presence of the same “mirage.” What is it? The problem lies in
fundamentally different attitudes. Likely the mother belongs to a
“heavier” variety of her type, this is the same kind of ILI which Gogol
once depicted in a caricature of the famous character of “Dead Souls”
with a pivotal phrase: “Our city only the judge is an honest person, and
even he is a pig.”
What to do with such a grouchy Balzac for a light, agile, cheerful
Huxley? One cannot always take him or her out to parties and
celebrations … Incompatibility of the attitudes here is obvious. In
fact, there is no support for the weak functions of the partner, but,
conversely, pressure is exerted on them by stronger second functions
(“For her, the main thing is a carefully done job (extroverted logic),
and for me - a good mood (introverted ethics)”).
Here is another example of the same relationship type:
My friend (type Huxley) is in many ways my complete opposite, but that
doesn’t hinder our frequent intimate conversations. She’s much older
than me and often speaks to me as a caring mother. Once I forgot to give
her the book I promised to give and received the well deserved rebuke.
Of course, I began to apologize and explain the reasons that prevented
me from doing what I promised … I didn’t finish, as she immediately,
laughing, interrupted me:
- Sophia, but I like you! You always say constructive things and to the
point.
For me, her reaction was a pleasant surprise, I remembered a similar
situation with another girl who resented my forgetfulness for a long
time, and only after I’ve been apologizing for a long time she
demonstratively and ceremoniously “forgave” me.
There are, however, situations where she should apologize before me, and
she never does it directly, but she tries to restore the relations by
further conversation in a confidential form that I accept with pleasure.
Here we have the same types, but they are completely comfortable in each
other’s company! What is different? The partners’ roles have changed:
the role of the senior mentor falls not to Balzac, but to Huxley - a
cheerful enthusiast and an adept psychologist. In this situation, Huxley
manages their communication and offers “rules” for their interaction.
The situation may have a third and a fourth possible outcomes, if
certain functions of types are strengthened. This leads to a significant
imbalance of energy of interaction, which can be accounted for only by
analyzing the interaction while taking subtypes into account.
And yet another consideration. In mirage relations there is no
communication of identical functions. Therefore, if partners do not feel
support for their weak functions from each other, they usually cannot
reach the agreement of their main life values.
Chapter 4. Contrary (Extinguishment) Relations.
¶
Here we have four identical functions of different orientation in the
same channels. And, at the same time - not a single communication
channel on identical functions. This implies that for these partners,
there isn’t any significant sphere in which they would have same point
of view.
Where one pays attention to external processes via his extroverted
function, the other focuses on the internal states via his introverted
function, and vice versa. As a result, it becomes difficult for these
partners to understand each other and agree, except if they deliberately
set out to look at the same issue from opposite points of view - this is
sometimes beneficial in creative research.
So it happens that during a meeting, partners are attracted to each
other by their “mystery.” Due to this, hasty unions and marriages often
arise between people who are exact opposites. Not surprisingly, the life
of the spouses in these families can be fairly strained and difficult
and often veers on the brink of breakup or divorce.
These relations, however, exist in different versions. Here is one of
them.
Esenin talks about his relationship with Huxley:
Esenin - Huxley (IEI-IEE)
My younger sister and I have five years difference in age. Between us
there are many quarrels. Sometimes I’m trying to teach her to live in my
own manner, but she dislikes this. Recently, she told me a story, how
she together with a classmate went to visit one guy. He put on some
music, but the girls started asking him for drinks.
There was a can of strawberry jam on the table, but the girls turned it
down and instead got out apple jam from the fridge. This story my sister
told I really did not like. I began explaining to her that you cannot
act like this at a party, this is very rude. She didn’t hear me out,
abruptly turned and walked away … We often have conflicts because of
the mess in the room. For me along it is difficult to maintain
cleanliness, although I want it. If I start cleaning, I start to insist
that my sister would also put her things in place. She doesn’t like
this. There were times when we could compromise, but most often this
ended with a quarrel.
All week long I live in a dormitory, and on Sunday I come home. The
moment I step into the apartment, a verbal barrage of all the news that
my sister had gathered in the week falls on my head: her eyes are opened
wide and brimming, her hands are gesticulating frantically … I can’t
stand this pressure and leave our room to go to the kitchen to see mom.
I feel guilty, and my sister, of course, feels offended. However, she
soon forgets it, and runs to inform me of the next piece of new she had
just remembered. Here I make an effort to listen very carefully, even if
I’ve heard of these “news” a few times before. After that, our relations
are ameliorated, until the next quarrel …
Two main causes of the conflicts can be seen here. First, there is a
huge difference in the levels of energy of the girls. One of the girls
(Huxley) possesses a very strong temperament, which suppresses her
dreamy and low-energy sister Esenin. Secondly - this pertains to
cleaning the room - the business logic of Esenin is a vulnerable
function that is in need of support, but she cannot find it, because it
is also a weak function of Huxley! Restless Huxley, of course, is bored
of cleaning and to accountability the youngest child in the family, it
seems, is not accustomed.
Another example: two girls - Dreiser and Hugo.
Hugo tells the story:
Hugo - Dreiser (ESE-ESI)
She lost her algebra notebook on the eve of the exam. She was looking
for it for a long time but couldn’t find it. Then I laughed out loud,
and suggested that, perhaps, this is the notebook that we have thrown
out because it has gotten soaked in juice and sour cream when the rack
fell down.
I do not know why, but I found it funny. She, on the other hand, started
shouting and saying that we have no right to do this to her things.
Hugo, who is trying to get away from any stressful situations, prefers
to see the world in festive and bright colors, finding good wherever is
possible. Of course, he doesn’t understand Dreiser with his exaggerated
sense of responsibility, heightened fear of all the exams and tests, and
the desire to perform any task as well as possible.
Another example: Don Quixote tells of his relationship with Balzac.
Don Quixote - Balzac (ILE-ILI)
We are sitting together and discussing some algebra problem. Everything
seems to be alright. Then I’m starting to get into it, forget about the
original problem, get excited if some interesting thoughts arise.
Meanwhile she looks at me with a disapprovin
- I wonder, why do you do nothing? Keep in mind, there is not much time
left until the end of the semester!
Such comments unpleasantly jab me. Similar relations I’ve had with my
brother of type Balzac. I understand that his advice is appropriate and
timely, but it doesn’t really reach me. I will still do everything in my
own way, and those things in which he’s right, I will somehow arrive at
with my own wits. His confidence that nothing good will come out of me,
I find very annoying. Of course, he does not say this, but I can feel
his conviction. He will not be swayed by any of my successes. This
doesn’t give me a chance to assert myself, to gain confidence, and also
don’t provide me with emotional support, which for me is very important.
This example clearly illustrates inappropriate effects of the leading
blocks of both partners. Don Quixote, supporter of everything new and
unusual (extroverted intuition), ready to immediately create a new
theory (introverted logic), finds no support from Balzac, who is waiting
for the right time (introverted intuition) to accomplish a purely
practical task (extroverted logic), and never misses an opportunity to
chill any inappropriate, in his opinion, passion and zeal of a partner
by his critical remarks.
Here is another story about relations between two girls of types
Napoleon Dumas:
Napoleon - Dumas (SEE-SEI)
I will talk about my girlfriends. To me, they are both good girls, but
when they got together, they would immediately begin to disagree -
usually over nothing. Then both would begin to complain about each
other.
- She is so self-satisfied! - complains Dumas. - Always thinks that she
is right. She wants me to always do as she sees it fit, and if I say
that it is better to do it differently  she just snorts. Yesterday she
asked me to show her my solution to a homework problem. When I did, she
looked up and said: “This is the wrong way to do it, you need to solve
it in a different way.” I explained to her that this problem can be
solved in three ways, and this is the way I preferred to others. She
keeps saying the same thing. Of course, I was angry, took my notebook
and walked away, so she shouted in my back: “What a stupid solution you
have there!”
Napoleon, on the other hand, complains about Dumas:
- Why is she such a sissy? She can’t do anything sensibly. She is always
too shy to ask for something, even if she’s in the right. Yesterday, for
example, there were doing some volunteering cleaning up our school. She
was clean-washing the window sills. She finished, called the teacher to
see her work, and the teacher said that, well, the sills were washed
poorly. She began to wash again, and again the teacher did not accept
it, and what do you think? She began to wash a third time! I would have
long ago caused a scene…
The “sissy” objected to this:
- Why do you always to order me around? According to you, I was supposed
to throw a scene and act indignant  so what would have come out of
this? I would have spoiled the whole day for myself. And this way - my
hands have not fallen off, and I feel great!
Here, of course, the sensing of experiences of Dumas, which inclines her
towards gentle attitude of respect and comfort not only of body, but
also inner comfort of the soul, encounters Napoleon, confident in her
rightfulness, seeking, in spite of everything, to dominate and to be
always right. Particularly heavy such relationships can be within the
family, where it’s not so easy to simply leave and “slam the door.”
And yet there are cases when the relations of exact opposites are quite
tolerable, even fruitful. Here is an example of this type of
relationships among two scientists:
Jack - Robespierre (LIE-LII)
It is very convenient for us to work on the same problem. We look at it
from opposite points of view, which provides us with almost absolute
certainty that we won’t miss out on anything. Still, I am aware of the
fact that, except for joint projects, we just don’t have anything to
talk about, and the work itself goes surprisingly well.
I am usually the one making proposals (Jack). He thinks them over, and
then either supports or fully rejects them.
Chapter 5. Mirror Relations.
¶
In these relations, partners are quite similar - they are both ethical
or logical types, both sensing or intuitive, but one is an extrovert,
and the other - an introvert.
They also differ on the scale of rationality - irrationality. In their
interaction, an active exchange of information occurs but on powerful
functions.
That, which one speaks or thinks about, the other implements without
further ado. They have much to learn from each other - though sometimes
this leads to the temptation to teach and instruct the partner.
Here are three examples of relations between types Robespierre and Don
Quixote (LII-ILE).
Author of the first story  Robespierre.
Robespierre - Don Quixote (LII-ILE)
One time we got a problem set from last year’s math exam. Since in six
months we will have to take it, we agreed, for the sake of training, to
go through and solve all the problems. I immediately began to operate by
means of mathematical analysis, and he started drawing some graphs.
After a while I started to graphically depict my results, and he began
writing down formulas. When we finished the first task, and, naturally,
arrived at the same answer, I asked him why he started solving the
problem from the graphs, because it will still need a mathematical
proof, would not it be better to immediately, without wasting time,
solve the problem analytically? To this, I received the following
response:
- Why do something so tedious when looking at the graphs of functions
you could have quickly estimated what the answer will be.
It turns out that he first acts intuitively, and then rationalizes it
(Ne-Ti), and I first develop a rational foundation and only then try to
imagine the result (Ti-Ne).
Here’s a scene from the life of students of the same types (ILE-LII):
Don Quixote and Robespierre share a dorm room. Outside the window, the
weather is gloomy and windy, the sky is covered with clouds. Thunder can
be heard in the distance. They are both doing math. Don Quixote:
- Finally a storm! The first of the year.
Robespierre did not respond, continuing to read “Higher Algebra”
textbook. Lyrical enthusiasm of his roommate evoked no interest in him.
After some time, the a discordant chorus could be heard on the streets:
“There is a national war, a holy war!”
Robespierre, without turning, as if he’s not talking to anyone, coldly
states:
- No, this isn’t a storm. These are fireworks.
Don Quixote is not happy with this unexpected revision of his poetic
imagination.
- Fireworks have different sound  says he and looks out of the window
- I do not see any fireworks explosions.
Robespierre, without moving from his seat, begins to argue:
- Today is May 9th, right? What time is it? It’s 10:05pm. When do
fireworks happen? Is this clear now?
Don Quixote falls silent, then angrily says:
- This is still a thunderstorm.
Robespierre delivers the last argument:
- Your “thunder” is rattling all too regularly, wouldn’t you agree?
And after 10 minutes it will end.
Don Quixote, muttering, “Ok, we’ll see,” with an offended look starts
to read the textbook …
Another example of the same relations (through the eyes of Don
Quixote)
In our group, there is a guy of type Robespierre. He is very capable,
but at the same time he is somewhat arrogant about it - as if the others
don’t matter. One day, the conversation turned to a problem which the
guys found difficult. He quickly solved it and pronounced the answer. I,
too, out of principle, undertook to solve it and obtained a different
answer. He said that my answer is wrong, and then we began to argue.
Then each of us wrote out our solution to the problem on the board, and
I proved that I was right and not him. This greatly unsettled him. H e
quieted down somewhat. Now he treats me with respect, and often
explicitly asks my opinion on a given problem.
All of the above examples illustrate that these partners have common
areas of interest, different approaches to solving problems, and a
fairly easy way of reconciling conflicts: here, there is no pressuring
by strong functions of one partner to the weak functions of another.
In the following example, partners are interacting via their strong
functions.
The woman of type Dostoevsky tells the story:
Dostoevsky - Huxley (EII-IEE)
One day my friend Nina (type Huxley) was returning to her house from the
lake. With us was the two year old son of the governess, Fedka. When we
went down the path to the main road, Fedka started complaining, fell
behind and started to point in the opposite direction, “Go there!”
We did a lot of coaxing, tries to lift him up and carry him. Nothing
worked. He would run back a few steps, sit down and cry.
“How can we trick him?” - I began to wonder. And then, as if hearing my
thoughts, Nina took Fedka by his hands and started walking in circles.
Fedka went silent, the game was obviously to his liking. I, meanwhile,
realizing what her plan was, quickly moved back up the road a few steps
further than they were. When she put Fedka on his feet and his head
stopped spinning, Nina asked him where do we go now. Fedka immediately
found my eyes, turned around and confidently pointed in the opposite
direction: “There!” Thus, we have successfully solved this problem.
Both women have ethics of relations as their strong function, so both
are looking for a way to avoid coercing the child. But if Dostoevsky is
only thinking about it on the 1st channel, then Huxley is acting on it
on the 2nd channel.
Mirror relationships can be quite comfortable, if both partners are
ethical types and, regardless of the circumstances, mutually seek
harmonization. Here is an example of such a pair:
Dumas - Hugo (SEI-ESE)
We have known each other for 3 years. My type is Dumas, his is Hugo. I
am with him same way he is with me, we find it hard to quarrel, but it
also happens that we fight but immediately make up. One summer we
sitting, drinking tea, and talking about how nice it would be to travel
somewhere to relax, such as the Black Sea, but of course we didn’t have
the money.
- We need to get the money somewhere. - I said. - Let’s gather mushrooms
or blueberries, and then sell on market - he suggests. - No, we won’t
earn much on this …
Next, I started making some very unrealistic proposal. I suddenly wanted
to find a treasure or to become heir to a fortune …
Among my impracticable proposals, I’ve also suggested selling ice cream
on the beach. My friend jumped at the offer, while it wouldn’t have come
to my mind to realize it. But he was serious. We sold ice cream for
entire month, and, imagine, made some very good money! And, of course,
we traveled to the Black Sea. Actually, my friend has a valuable talent
for implementing my ideas into life, moreover, ideas which I myself
don’t relate to seriously.
Here once again we see how one partner by his energy and his
entrepreneurial spirit implements what the other partner can only
mentally construct. This is what ensures the success of their
partnership. But if both partners hold authority, then “mirroring” can
result in the following relations:
Zhukov - Maxim (SLE-LSI)
My older brother is of type Maxim, and my type is Zhukov. The conflicts
we have with him are rare, but this is because we both strive to avoid
them. For example, my brother loves to teach me, give me advice on how
to properly organize my life. I irritate him with my unpredictability.
In order not to annoy each other, we try to come into contact as little
as possible. For example, we avoid even sitting at the table together,
except on holidays. On other days, even if we’re both hungry, first one
goes to the kitchen and then the other.
Chapter 6. Conflict Relations.
¶
In this case, the energy of the powerful 1st channel of each of the
partners can fall onto the weak 3rd channel (PoLR) of the other. The
relationship is not a pleasant one.
It is clear that in these relations, partners can sympathize with each
other only when they are at a considerable distance. Each is attracted
by the strong function of the other partner, in the sphere of which he
is most vulnerable and unsure of himself. Upon approach, partners sooner
or later feel the pressure on their PoLR and, to avoid discomfort,
increase the distance of communication (these relations are
symmetrical).
Several examples of conflict relations are provided below. Here is how a
student of type Maxim perceives her dorm roommate of type Huxley.
Maxim - Huxley (LSI-IEE)
When she first appeared - the experience was most pleasant: she was very
sociable, always treated us to something tasty she brought from home
(she lives in the city, 30km from our work), often lighted up with some
idea, at least, around her it was never boring.
But after prolonged interaction we began to have problems. For example,
she never thought about that dishes should be cleaned from the table and
washed on time.
She, much easier than I, captured the essence of all theorems and
proofs. I was constantly annoyed by the ease with which she was able to
do this.
Due to inability to predict what she will do in the next moment, it was
generally very difficult to agree with her to anything beforehand. She
used to come over on Sunday night, stay the night, and go back home
Monday morning. But she very easily comes into contact with people,
quickly lights up with new ideas …
More recently, the following has transpired: she and her girlfriend, not
wanting to live on a single fellowship, decided to take up tutoring
they hung up ads, were discussing something… A few days later I was
“pleasantly” surprised to learn that they have decided to tutor students
in our room a few times a week, and I was simply presented before the
fait accompli. It did not occur to her to consult or ask for permission.
When tutoring started, it looked like this: “Today, the father of one of
my students will be coming, but I have to pay a visit to the town, so
could you look to it?” I was so taken aback that I, frankly, couldn’t
find words to object to her…
Let’s see which functions of Maxim are affected by contact with Huxley.
First of all, Maxim is annoyed by inconsistency, lack of thoughtfulness
(which is on the verge of irresponsibility) in actions of Huxley. Here,
the strong function of Maxim (introverted logic) is affected. Maxim
wants partner’s actions to be reasonable, or at least fit into the
framework of common sense.
Furthermore, the ease with which Huxley intuitively resolves her
matters, without, it would seem, putting in the necessary effort, is
wounding to Maxim. His own intuition is in vulnerable function and is
too weak to grant such ease. But this is not all. The sensing of Maxim
also suffers; his preference for order and cleanliness, which Huxley can
so easily upsets without even noticing (will she really think of such
things as washing dishes?).
In turn, for Huxley, the boring and over-organized, from her point of
view, lifestyle of her roommate Maxim is hardly pleasant. It is possible
that spontaneous trips back home after spending only one night in the
college housing is a natural attempt to spend as little time as possible
side-by-side with her “exacting” roommate.
We see, therefore, that in conflict relations, all three defining
functions of partners “suffer” - I, II and III. However, the nature of
perceived discomfort in all three cases is different. Given that in the
first two functions people are usually confident, that these areas
contain their core values and attitudes, the invasion of this area by
their conflictor, who uses other “yardsticks” that violate these values
and attitudes, causes resentment, protest, indignation. All of this is
supported by the absolute certainty of being right, “How can he do that,
it’s a disgrace!” When the pressure is applied to PoLR, the person feels
something akin to own inferiority near his conflict partner, and this is
experienced particularly painfully.
Let us turn to another example: mother (type Dumas) and son (type Jack).
Dumas - Jack (SEI-LIE)
It’s not that my older brother and my mother get along poorly with each
other. But they often have conflicts that appear out of the blue. I
think my mother suffers more - my brother also feels this, but can’t do
anything about it, somehow it doesn’t work.
Without even realizing it, he often put her into a logical impasse by
pragmatic remarks. In response, she suddenly explodes, and everything
for her is no longer right. And my brother continues to maintain his
position.
This summer, we were posting up wallpaper. My brother and I were engaged
in the technical side (Te - strong function of Jack) and mother  in the
artistic side (Si - strong function of Dumas). She asked us to glue the
wallpaper so and so, to which my brother replied that so and so is
exactly how it won’t work, and supported his argument. My mother,
however, felt that he simply doesn’t want to do anything, and told him
this, adding that if he posted the wallpaper the way he wanted, then it
would be utterly hideous. (Note: Here, mother and son are exchanging
“blows” through their strong functions on PoLR functions of each other.)
This argument ended with sudden explosion - my mother left, saying: “Do
as you want!”
After this, my brother did some measurements, drafted a few sketches,
then gave me his instructions and started to work. Together, we created
a very complicated pattern, and eventually did everything exactly as my
mother said. Although my brother felt that he was wrong, he did not
apologize, considering that he is excused by a job well done.
The following two examples: relations between Esenin and Stirlitz.
Girl of type Esenin tells about her brother:
Esenin - Stirlitz (IEI-LSE)
In everything, my brother and I are different kinds of people. First, we
have a completely different rhythm of life. I, being tired from the day,
can relax in the evening, and closer to night pull myself together and
sit down to do homework. My brother, in contrast, can be studying all
day, but by 11 o’clock in the evening he has to go to bed.
If he returns from a math competition or after finishing an exam, he is
usually in a good mood and then makes me solve everything that he has
solved so that I could appreciate his abilities. The same thing happens
with crossword puzzles.
Often I cannot stand this pressure (on extroverted logic), because I
cannot tolerate such persistence with which he keeps track of my
actions: did I find a solution or not, did I choose the correct course,
and so on.
But at the same time, I know how to use his abilities and very simply
can inspire him to solve a problem which I don’t understand: it’s enough
to tell him that I can’t manage. Without additional words, he sets to
work and soon “proves” me wrong. The same thing happens with other
activities  he just has to play his part.
Relations of same types, from the point of view of a young Stirlitz:
I have a friend of type Esenin, and there is a feeling that we were
created just to get on each other’s nerves. This is what happened
recently: my girlfriend likes to go to the movies, hanging out, etc., as
long as she’s not sitting at home bored. This happened on Friday when we
went for a walk.
- Let’s go to the movies on Sunday … - She says.
- I can’t. I have an exam on Tuesday, will have to spend Sunday
preparing for it, - I replied.
She started sulking. We walked in silence. To put an end to this
awkward silence, I said:
- Last night I finished reading a book …
Here she interrupts me mid-sentence:
- Yeah, so, for reading books you have time, and to go to the movies
with me  no.
Here came my turn to pout. I was reviewing lecture materials until
4am, and then until 5am I finished reading this wretched book that I
couldn’t finish the entire week.
It is clear that in both cases relations are very strained. Stirlitz,
who constantly strictly watches to ensure that no one shirks their
responsibilities, of course, constantly affect the PoLR of Esenin. What
would happen if her brother was her dual - Zhukov? Zhukov and Esenin are
both irrational types with similar rhythms of life. It’s doubtful that
energetic and strong-willed Zhukov would force his less active sister,
who often breaks out in tears, to constantly solve some problems or do
anything else. As a rule, in dual family Zhukov - Esenin relations are
formed as follows:
Recently Helen has gotten married, and it would seem that her husband is
a completely different person from her, but in him she has found real
support, that’s for sure. Now, when I came to see them, I see the
following picture: she is sitting with a book and reading, and her
husband is asking her, “Helen, is everything alright? What do you think?
“As far as I can determine, he is of type Zhukov. Frankly, in a
different, non-family atmosphere you’d never hear anything like this
from him, but him and Lena are just the perfect couple, even though
before we all wondered how such two differen
Now imagine that in the second story instead of type Esenin we were
dealing with type Dostoevsky, dual of Stirlitz. First, she would be just
as diligent and organization of Stirlitz would help her finish her
homework on time, which would evoke in her appreciation and sense of
satisfaction. His desire to study on Sunday she would have perceived
with understanding and respectfulness; she would also do something on a
weekend. Her desire for self-improvement would be reinforced here, and
both would have remained satisfied with each other.
If conflicting parties have the opportunity to increase the distance of
communication, then, as mentioned above, after the exchange of “blows”
to their PoLR functions, they distance. But if, for example, they are
married, it is not so easy to do, and the relationship can become
unbearable.
Wife of type Napoleon tells this story:
Napoleon - Robespierre (SEE-LII)
Type of my husband is Robespierre. Before the wedding, we knew each
other for only three months. He tried to be kind and caring, I was
attracted to his intelligence, good judgment, calmness. The first
conflict situation arose one day before the wedding, and right after the
wedding our relationship completely deteriorated, which became
especially apparent after the birth of our child. Whatever I say to him,
he finds annoying. It is as if he’s doing everything that makes me
angry. One time he was repeating the same phrase in English for an hour.
He stopped only when I became hysterical. Constantly jabs me, “You are
so overweight and unpleasant” and I’m constantly yelling at him: “Are
not you ashamed, that you haven’t lifted a finger at home!” and in the
same manner. If I cry, he gets enormous pleasure from it. My husband and
I have completely opposite attitudes to everything. There is a constant
feeling of an impending explosion. We are even able to strike each
other. At times it seems that relations are improving, but then again at
some unexpected moment one will hurt the other.
Thus, if two socionics conflicting types have met, should one go up to
them and tell them, “Stay away from each other, conflict is inevitable
between you” (this is sometimes what socionics beginners will do, of
course, only out of good intentions)?
Acquainted with one more example of the conflict relations psycho
Dostoevsky - Zhukov.
Woman of type Dostoevsky tells this story:
Dostoevsky - Zhukov (EII-SLE)
About 20 years ago, together with V. we went to a dance club, which was
recently organized. She couldn’t help herself drawing attention by her
gorgeous figure and commanding style, which immediately made her one of
the main figures of the club.
In the early years of our friendship, I was very annoyed at her direct,
peremptory tone which left no room for any objections, and I tried to
stay away from her (Dostoevsky feels strong-willed pressure of Zhukov).
Later V. supported certain elitism within our club, not allowing certain
people to join, who, in her view, were not on the same level as the rest
of us. Her position caused my outrage. (Dostoevsky, with his strong
ethics generally believes that all people are worthy of attention and
respect.)
But a few years later, I discovered that the life of the club, of which
we are all very proud of, really hinges on activity of V. Constant
contacts with the administration concerning leasing stipulations,
contracts with teachers, financing matters  she was “pulling” all it,
and not people like me, who just enjoy the fruits of another’s labor and
can only feel indignation (usually in the shower). If I had to take up
such responsibilities, our club would have soon collapsed.
In recent years, V. is one of my closest friends. Her constant realism
and optimism save me from the oppressive mood slumps that I am given to,
sometimes to the point of despair. In such situations, she tells me a
story about one of her friends, from which I learn that people live in
much more difficult situations than mine.
- Do not anger God - she likes to say  anyone could wish to have you
problems!
After such “pumping” I part with her feeling almost happy - all my
problems transform into a triviality.
However, in relation to V., I have developed a certain strategy: in
anything that we do together, I completely obey her, although I
understand that this is only possible for relatively short periods of
our meetings; to constantly live like this for me would be impossible.
As you can see, even people in conflict relations can, at a certain
distance, communicate and be friends (remember the girl-Esenin who
learned to beneficially apply logical abilities of her brother
Stirlitz). Obviously, conflictors by their strong functions can not only
put pressure on each other’s PoLR, but also complement and help each
other. But this requires a certain balanced and well thought out method
of interaction.
Chapter 7 and 8. Supervision (Audit) Relations.
¶
In these relations, the functions of partners are arranged such that the
1st, strongest function of one partner (called the Supervisor) exerts
pressure on other PoLR of the other partner (called the Supervisee). In
turn, the Supervisee does not have direct access to the weak function of
the Supervisor.
A notable quality of these relations is their asymmetry, that the
Supervisor, without feeling the pressure himself, may approach
dangerously closely to the Supervisee. He would not have dared to
approach if these were relations of conflict, where the danger is
mutual.
All 16 types can be connected in such a way that each is a Supervisor in
relations to one type and the Supervised in relations to another type.
Thus we obtain four “rings of supervision” comprised of four types each:
Don Quixote -> Maxim -> Napoleon -> Dostoevsky -> Don Quixote;
Dumas -> Hamlet -> Balzac -> Stirlitz -> Dumas;
Robespierre -> Huxley -> Dreiser -> Zhukov -> Robespierre;
Hugo -> Gabin -> Jack -> Yesenin -> Hugo.
In principle, each person inherently speaks out on the issues that are
of his primary focus, especially, if these issues fall into the sphere
of his strongest function. Those around him may express their interest
or indifference - depending on their level of interest. Let us suppose
that in the vicinity of this person was his Supervisee … and here it
turns out that to any seemingly harmless remark this person is
extremely sensitive, take things too close to his heart, because the
pressure is exerted on his vulnerable 3rd channel.
Here is an example of the audit: ILE (Don Quixote) talks about his
relations with EII (Dostoevsky):
Don Quixote - Dostoevsky (ILE-EII)
For some reason I always find it difficult to communicate with him: when
I say something, he goes so silent that I feel he’ll take offense at any
moment. So I have to keep myself within certain limits. First, I feel
uncomfortable with this, then I try to entertain and distract him, but
meanwhile I’m feeling like a cheap clown. I try to shake him up - and
all because he is silent and this silence is very painful for me. It
seems like his thought process is very slow, and my thoughts are like
fleas jumping around. He, on the other hand, cannot quickly switch, so
when I try to shake him up, he responds by retreating into himself even
further. In the end, I perceive this prolonged silence as a reproach, as
a sign of my own tactlessness.
What is a textbook example of supervision relations! Note that on the
surface it seems like nothing is happening, one partner is talking, and
another, being unable to keep up after the thoughts his companion, keeps
silent, but that silence is perceived by Supervisee as a reproach and
accusations in tactlessness, because introverted ethics which is in
Dostoevsky’s 1st leading channel for Don Quixote is a painful,
vulnerable function. Someone else would have reacted calmly to the fact
that the partner is slowly thinking over what he is hearing, but the
Supervisee immediately begins to worry - he inadequately interprets this
situation, that his behavior seems tactless to his conversation partner.
With regard to the Supervisor, for him these relations are ultimately
also unpleasant, but in a different way: he cannot understand why this
is happening: anything he tells to the Supervisee results in hurt
feelings, frustration, anger or unexpected aggression. The Supervisor
feels that his partner is too short-tempered, too irritable, closes off
at the slightest things, around him it is necessary “to tiptoe” all the
time …
- I tell him this without any intention to hurt or offend!  exclaims
the Supervisor - Why do I get such a reaction?
Let us refer to some examples. Here is a situation where Stirlitz is in
role of Supervisee:
Balzac - Stirlitz (ILI-LSE)
During the preparation for the exams she (Stirlitz) on the very first
day sits down to study, and I (Balzac), as usual, leave and spend some
time “building up” and preparing. After a day or two, I start to feel
that it’s time to study and sit down with my notes. Understanding the
general idea of the proof, I set the theory aside without going into
details - I don’t want to spend too much time on it and leave it for
later, to scrupulously study on a fresh head. Therefore the rate at
which I’m preparing for the exams is slightly higher than hers; in two
or three days I catch up, and we start studying the same material. Here,
suddenly conflicts arise. Grasping the main idea, I try to explain it to
her, but for some reason she suddenly takes offense and turns away from
me. After a short break, I humbly ask if she understood this and that.
She replies that yes, of course, she understood, and attempts to explain
it to me. I cannot really comprehend her explanation: it doesn’t contain
a clearly expressed idea of proof. Then I, in turn, try to explain to
her where she is experiencing fundamental difficulties. Nothing good
results out of this: she gets offended again …
In the following example Stirlitz, in turn, revises Dumas:
Stirlitz - Dumas (LSE-SEI)
I always wanted to find out my sister’s type because there were very
strong suspicions that our relations in intertype sense is unfavorable.
My type is Stirlitz. As close relatives we, of course, love each other,
but we often quarrel. It comes to this that I, a 20-year-old, resort to
using physical force against her, the 10-year-old. I’m simply maddened
by some of her comments … “How does this insect dare?” Of course, I
tell her all that I think about her. But at some point, I realized that
as an older brother, I can and must do something to make our
relationship change for the better.
I started with finding out her type. Testing her, I’ve found out that
her type is Dumas, and that she is my Supervisee! Then I realized what
the issue was: I was roughly crushing her with my own logic. Indeed, all
our quarrels follow one and the same scenario: I voice a reprimand, she
makes faces in response, I don’t like it, I tell her that she is so and
so, doesn’t do this or that … She tries to object, but I am already
“on the track” and cannot stop myself. I explain to her why she is so
bad, tell her exactly what is “wrong” with her, and in the end I
conclude that she is - well, just a little monster! As a result of my
“disciplining” she is crying, and I’m angry and leave for the kitchen.
Subconsciously, I feel that I am wrong, but I cannot do anything with
myself, and reassure myself that logically speaking, I stated everything
reasonably and fairly.
I must say that socionics gave me a new perspective on our relationship.
Recently, we have had few quarrels, because I always remember that my
form of logic is my sister’s weak point, and trying to persuade her
logically is a waste of my time and nerves.
Let us move a little further along the “ring of supervision” where Dumas
is in role of Supervisor (his Supervisee - Hamlet); the storyteller is a
girl of type Huxley:
Dumas - Hamlet (SEI-EIE)
My friend of type Dumas has a boyfriend of type Hamlet. They met a year
ago and it seems to me that they could be good friends, but this is
hindered by excessive vulnerability of Hamlet. My friend readily sees
the shortcomings of her boyfriend and often points them out, of course,
being guided by the best motives. He, on the other hand, reacts very
painfully upon hearing such comments about his person, behaves out of
control, becomes hysterical - there are frequent door slammings and
insulting remarks. It seems a little odd to me that when I make very
similar comments, he takes them calmly without overreacting, and listens
to them, though sometimes not considering them in depth.
At the same time, he is very sensitive about his looks and exactly on
this theme he seeks advice from my friend, completely trusting her and
unquestioningly following this advice.
Conflicts also arise because the extravagant artistry of her boyfriend
to her seems too factitious and unnecessary. In his behavior she notices
excesses, pathos, artificiality. But in those cases, when they visit
various public places, his appeal to the audience and sociability are
not annoying to her, and seem quite appropriate and natural, but even
here she is able to pull him back, pointing to the fact that he has no
sense of measure.
And now here is a story of how Hamlet himself is supervising his friend
of type Balzac:
Hamlet - Balzac (EIE-ILI)
In the summer I and my friend (Balzac) attended a labor camp for
collecting fruits on farms. Common job and rest breaks brought us closer
together and we became friends. Our relationship was supported by common
interests related to computers, and a common goal - admission to the
university. And now that goal is achieved: we are students. Then it
turned out that neither of us had time left for our common hobby. Here
started all of our troubles. One time we were sitting in class. I was
distracted by someone. To catch up, I asked him to show me his notes
from beginning of class. He showed them to me, but I found his
handwriting to be illegible. I needed time to read them carefully and
felt like I was starting to interfere. Finally, he took away the lecture
notes and promised to decipher them later. I jokingly called him
“greedy” and asked him to do it as soon as possible. To this he replied
dryly: “This is my notebook, and I’ll do with it as I want,” - probably
he took offense at my comments about his greediness. My response was:
“Sure, do as you wish,” - and then I immediately asked him to return the
book that I gave him a few days ago. After this, we did not talk for a
while, but then I took a step towards reconciliation. Still, there
remained a sense of dissatisfaction with each other between us since
this incident.
Relationship of this kind continues to the present day - according to
the law of oscillation: first getting worse, then improving. There are
moments of very good understanding and even support. So we continue to
be friends, and in spite of the fact that we have hated arguments, I
still consider him to be one of my closest friends.
In this story, two different areas of communication manifest very
clearly: when partners are interacting through their strong functions
(introverted intuition), that are related to making plans, dreaming,
setting future goals, their relationship is good. If the author of the
story acts on his leading function (extroverted ethics), this clearly
irritates his friend, who has the same function is located in PoLR. The
result is almost inevitable quarrels.
Thus, we ran the full circle. And what will happen if representatives of
these four sociotypes find themselves in the same team and will have to
work in the same room? All of their work time will be devoted to sorting
out their relations.
This, of course, in no way implies they are “bad people.” It must be
understood that each person, by himself or herself, is not an instigator
of quarrels, is not a villain or a monster. Everyone, as a rule, strives
to be on good terms. However, if Supervisor and Supervisee have to
interact extensively, the conflicts will occur sooner or later.
Relations of supervision, however, are not always so clear-cut. It all
depends, again, on which functions the partners are interacting.
Below are three examples of the relations between the Supervisor of type
Don Quixote and Supervisee of type Maxim. In the first and the second
story, the narrator is Don Quixote; the third one is on behalf of an
outside observer.
Don Quixote - Maxim (ILE-LSI)
First story: One time we were working together on some problems in
physics: we wanted to take part in a competition. We started on a
problem in which it was necessary to conduct a thought experiment and
get the answer in numerical form. He began to solve by direct advance,
“head on” (introverted logic) and could not get the right result. I
first attempted to “feel” the whole system. I practically guessed the
answer (extroverted intuition) - and turned out to be the right one. My
friend, for some reason, became very upset. Further, there were problems
of the same type. Going over them for me was quite boring, and I could
not bring myself to help him in solving them, though in a different
situation I would have agreed. He grew so angry with me that he then did
not speak to me for two years. I was very surprised by this reaction.
Second story: Many times I have heard from him, that, well, you need to
plan everything. In part, I agree with him - sometimes you have to plan,
but not every minute!
One time I come back home at about 2pm. He is sitting, clearly puzzled
by something. What’s the matter? It turned out he had planned out his
entire work day and was supposed to have lunch at 1:30pm, but there was
some accident at the cafeteria and now it only opens at 3:00pm. The poor
fellow was really confused and trying to re-plan everything at the
moment when I arrived, and was just writing down the minutes on a piece
of paper. I indeed felt a bit sorry for him, although I was entertained
by this story.
He went to bed as usual, at 10:30pm (here no accident could have baffled
his plan), and I went to another room so I would not interfere. Very
quietly, trying not to wake him, I came back at midnight and went to lie
down. Falling asleep, I heard him tossing and turning in his bed: this
means that for 1.5 hours he could not sleep, but still tried to keep his
regime!
All that night there were some noises, knocking, shuffling of feet. And
in the morning I discovered that he had dropped the bed on the floor and
is sleeping on the floor. He explained that “the grid is stretched
unevenly and he cannot sleep on it.” Interestingly, he slept in the same
bed for six weeks and everything was fine … Without thinking, I offer
him my bed, but he did not agree, because my spot “is bad, right in
front of the door.” I said: “If you want, let’s move the beds to switch
them around.” He was a little surprised but did not reject this
suggestion, and was rather happy with it. In his place, I would not have
accepted such a proposal, because it would mean that the other will
suffer all the inconvenience that I’ve suffered. All day I was thinking
about it, assuming that he will think this over thoroughly and refuse to
switch the beds…
In the evening he comes back home and brings a couple boards for the
bed. I inwardly rejoice: aha, so he’s going to work on dealing with his
bed problem. But then he says to me: “Ok, let’s move the beds.” -
“Excuse me, but did you not bring the boards to put on your bed? Why
change now?” He gets into a pose: “These boards were picked especially
for a bed such as yours, well, do you agree to exchange or not?” This
was said in such a tone as if I owed him a hundred dollars. Without
further discussions, we moved the beds …
We also have frequent conflicts over cleaning up the room: “There is
dust on the floor,” - he makes a “subtle” hint. Well, really, maybe I
don’t have eyes. I can see for myself that it is dirty. But this doesn’t
mean that I should immediately take off and run to wash the floor? When
I will be in the right mood, then I’ll wash it, but my roommate’s main
principle is: “Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today!”
Absolutely idiotic principle, I will know exactly when and what I should
do.
Third story: Young woman of type Don Quixote works for a research
institute. One of her students is of type Maxim. From the very
beginning, she showed good attitude towards him, was attentive and
tactful - he was also considerate and helpful in relation to her. Later,
he became a graduate research student, then an employee of the same
laboratory. His relations with his former professor remain polite and
respectful. They also retain the same distance: always appropriate young
man had never acted carelessly or rudely, which Don Quixote cannot
tolerate.
Over the years, he has succeeded in work and attained a higher position
than her former adviser. Here is her verbal recount of him:
- In spite of his high position, he does treat me differently  he is
still considerate and does not forget that I’m his senior. It happens
that he will assign me a task, and I still do things in my own way, and
he does not protest but puts up with this situation … There is
possibly no other person with whom I could work so well!
Thus, we have three cases of Supervision relations between the same
sociotypes. What do they have in common? At a first glance  nothing. In
the first case, we have a textbook version of Supervision: Maxim feels
very uncomfortable on situations involving intuition of possibilities
(extraverted intuition), which is the most powerful function of Don
Quixote. For Maxim it is difficult to understand how it is possible to
cursorily “foresee” the result without doing the follow-through
calculations. He is upset with the ease with which his friend is able to
do it. For him this situation seems unfair.
In the second example, the situation is reversed. Really, who is
revising whom in this case? After all, in this living situation it is
Don Quixote who is feeling the pressure coming from strong functions of
Maxim (Ti-Se): rigorous daily schedule, claim to the best bed and the
best place in the room. What makes Maxim subject his roommate to such
coercion? Perhaps, it’s not only his strong functions to blame, but also
his upbringing  he makes an impression of a person who is not very
empathetic and not very bright. His roommate, apparently, is more
generous, more intelligent and capable of compromise … The result: the
Supervisee exerts pressure on the Supervisor and is clearly succeeding
in this.
Finally, the third example is ideal. Both partners demonstrate the
highest possible level of relations. As a result, there is nothing left
of notorious “Supervision”, especially since both have the ability to
communicate via strong function (introverted logic), that is, to conduct
a reasonable dialogue. The differences in their social position and age
are honored, which allows each of them to do their job meanwhile
respecting the methods of the other partner without interfering.
Generally speaking, the closer the distance in this relationship  the
more dangerous the situation. This is especially true of family
relations where communication inevitably occurs at very close ranges.
All functions are involved in the process of communication here, thus
Supervision is often quite severe. If it is impossible to discontinue
this kind of communication, the result may be a psychological illness
(most often for the Supervisee). The author is aware of one family that
is doing relatively well, where the wife is the Supervisee (husband’s
type is Maxim, her type is Napoleon), where partners have learned to get
along with each other. After studying socionics and realizing the cause
of their conflicts, they organized their lives in such a way that they
could periodically “rest” from each other: the husband found a job that
involved travel and every three months he departs for a trip. Even with
such arrangement, his wife still feels rather heavy pressuring from her
husband, but the topic of divorce in this family has not been discussed.
Chapter 9. Identical Relations.
¶
Here partners are of the same socionics type. They have identical
functions in their information channels. Therefore, information is
easily transmitted from one partner to another.
Such relations are extremely productive in teacher-student type of
interaction: no one can teach as intelligibly and learn as quickly as an
identical. However, as soon as their knowledge equalizes, their interest
in one another is lowered, since they cannot tell anything new to each
other. They have the same reaction to the same stimuli. Both are strong
and weak in the same areas, so that they cannot expect support from each
other in the areas of their weak functions. It even happens that they
have nothing to talk about: what one is thinking becomes voiced by the
other.
If a married couple is in dual relations, and the child inherits the
type of one of the parents, these are extremely favorable conditions for
the child’s development. As there can be no better teacher than an
identical, there can be no better guardian than a dual: from the side of
the dual support is always felt, dual loves you without asking for
anything in return, just for “who you are”. Unfortunately, in many
families parenting is done only by one parent. In this case, if the
parent’s type is identical to that of the child, he teaches the child
well, but the child does not feel a sense of security and support for
the weak functions. The child then has to become self-sufficient
quickly; he may develop into a cold personality, with rigid structural
attitudes, and exaggerated desire for prestige both at work and at home.
If, however, he is brought up by his dual, the child feels supported
from early years, grows used to being loved “for who he is” without
making any effort, but then he grow up poorly adapted to handle
difficult situations, since he is not in the habit of at least to some
extent compensating for his weak functions, as the burden was previously
alleviated by his dual parent.
For many children of school age, compatibility with their teacher, who
teaches all the subjects at the primary level, may be decisive for many
years of future studies. If the student is identical of the teacher, he
readily understands him or her, studies well and, of course, receives
high marks. For those children whose socionics type is not very
compatible with the type of the teacher, studying is difficult. Such a
child usually falls behind in studies and can even develop insecurity in
own abilities.
Les us consider a few examples of identical relations. A girl of type
Stirlitz told this story:
Stirlitz - Stirlitz (LSE-LSE)
Since childhood, I enjoyed my father’s explanations because everything
that he would say I understood perfectly. He was the one who taught me
how to read and write when I was 5 years old. During school years,
father often helped me to solve puzzles. If I didn’t understand some
material at school, Dad could explain it to me in such a way that
everything became accessible and easy to understand, which left me
wondering how was it that I previously didn’t understand?
I’ve always had great rapport with my Dad. I could tell him about
various problems and always received from him very helpful advice.
However, there was a period in our lives when we conflicted over nothing
and haven’t spoken for days. In addition, each sincerely believed that
the other was to blame. If it wasn’t for my mother, I do not know how we
could have reconciled. Mom hates it when we quarrel. She turns to one
then another trying to mitigate our conflict. She would tell me this:
- You are future wife and mother, and you must learn to give in.
I would resist for a long time, but when I very much wanted to share
something with my dad, despite everything, I went and talked to him, to
which my father responded with pleasure, for he was also tired of our
silence. But it was my mother who most of all rejoiced at our
reconciliation.
Interestingly, when my mother was away traveling, my dad and I became
inseparable friends  we never had any quarrels. We both loved puzzle
games where one has to think of something, after analyzing the situation
choose the best course.
Therefore, we have always found something to occupy with when left
alone.
Here is another story of identicals Esenins:
Esenin - Esenin (IEI-IEI)
It very often it happens that we don’t want to talk about serious
topics, discuss business, do something that is necessary, with my
friends of type Esenin - it turns out that it’s simply nice to spend
time with them. We were drawn to each other; we want to be together and
do nothing. When a close friend of mine leaves for the weekend, I very
much miss him and always think of him. When he returns, we both rejoice,
though, if we spend much time together, it becomes boring, there is
almost nothing to talk about … But it is still nice to be close to
each other.
When I seriously think about the future, it makes me uncomfortable,
because I strongly attached to my friends - without them I cannot and
don’t want to do anything. How will my life pan out?
The above two stories about a father and daughter of type Stirlitz and
friends of type Esenin illustrate how communication over strong
functions has the result of amplifying them. Stirlitz is an active type.
In the first story, this is reflected in the fact that both daughter and
her father like to solve logical problems in their spare time.
Low energy idealistic Esenin with friends-identicals, on the contrary,
is even further immersed in his imagination and inaction. Moreover, in
such company the pastime gets supported by a sufficient justification:
“I am no worse than others”. In such combinations of types, there is no
incentive to work on oneself and little that promotes personal growth.
Next is a story about the relations of two representatives of type
Zhukov:
Zhukov - Zhukov (SLE-SLE)
I wouldn’t say that our relations are especially involved - neither I
nor he strive towards this. Sometimes we play cards together, but often
conflicts develop. They follow the same scenario: each time it seems to
him that someone is infringing on his interests  his partner is
cheating or the opposing team is not playing by the rules  and he
cannot be persuaded otherwise. Then I need to find a compromise,
however, I, just like him, just don’t have sufficient tolerance. But our
conflicts usually don’t last very long, because I’m rarely truly take
offense.
In identical relations, reliance on the strong functions is particularly
pronounced. What should happen if both partners have volitional sensing
as first function (this is the case in the example above)? Obviously,
these types can interact well only if these is division of their areas
of influence. For example, in one family where both husband and wife are
of type SEE, the husband realizes his leadership skills on the job, and
his wife commands in the house. When their interests overlap, conflicts
begin. However, there are also cases where both types can direct their
efforts towards achieving the same goal or working on the same project
in this case, their combined energy and directed efforts can be
unbeatable.
Next example  relations between friends of type Hamlet:
Hamlet - Hamlet (EIE-EIE)
When they met each other, they immediately found a common language. Then
they became inseparable friends. Both of them like to talk about
different topics. They are interested in very many areas - politics,
economics, history, philosophy … Both easily fall in love, and in
general they have found in each other many similar traits, even their
birthdays have coincided. All was well, but recently one of them started
saying that he was tired of the other, and sometimes wants to be alone
… This is understandable. After such a prolonged dialogue they have
nothing to talk about: what is in the thoughts of one, is already in
words of another.
This story reflects the specificity of interaction of “strong” ethical
functions. Of course, the dialogue of two representatives of type Hamlet
can be quite favorable only in the early stages and at some distance,
since they both love to be the center of attention, both need an
audience, and both are very vulnerable. In particular, it would
difficult to get along in the same family  each will “pull the blanket
The author can remember one family where the mother and son were both of
type Hamlet  at some point the tensions have reached such proportions
that the son, trying to distance himself from his family and contact
with his mother, have put locks on all their rooms and is now looking
for opportunities to buy a separate condo for his elderly mother,
despite the fact that they have only recently moved in together.
Below are two examples of identical relations between young people of
type Huxley:
Huxley - Huxley (IEE-IEE)
First story: The relations between two IEE students.
My friend simply loves different adventures, fun and risky activities.
In 7th grade she made a wonderful friend of the same type, who is also
ready to arduously paint life into wonderful colors. They became best
friends very soon  one understood the other from half word, from single
glance, from a barely noticeable gesture.
One day they were walking to school together. Suddenly, the girl notices
on the road a shaggy little puppy. She exclaims with amusement and
rushes to pet it: - Poor, homeless dog! You’re so adorable! You must be
hungry? - Lets take him home  suggests her friend  he is indeed very
cute looking …
But it’s not so simple: because there are still 4 lessons at school
ahead, and a dog might run away or someone else will take it, and if
they take it home they will be late for lessons.
It is not known who was the originator of this idea, but the result was
that the girl put her books into the bag of her friend, and the puppy
was put in place of textbooks. Thus they came to class with a dog. At
first all was well, the puppy was sleeping peacefully, but during the
break he was awakened by the noise in the classroom, and started whining
softly.
The entire next lesson, they both held the dog on their hands, but still
they did not manage to avoiding the obvious outcome of this story: the
puppy started barking - the teacher with surprise looked at the class.
The friends tried hard not to laugh at the same time to subdue the dog.
But they couldn’t do either. The puppy jumped on the floor and filled
the classroom with sounds of a triumphant bark, and the troublemakers
buried their faces in their desks, no longer being able to hold back
their laughter.
They escaped punishment: they were lucky because the canine hero of this
story immediately won over the hearts of teachers, when all three were
taken to the principle.
Second story: Two students of type IEE.
I have two friends, a girl and a guy. On the faces of both there is
always a shining smile  it seems like they enjoy the whole world and
everyone in it. Each of them is able to flirt with everyone and no one
in particular. Each with his sad look can intrigue others and within a
minute suddenly switch back to playfulness and cheerfulness. When they
meet together, they start with small jabs. Sitting across and other,
they try to insult one another in the most sophisticated ways possible.
Once I overheard their conversation: he referred to her as a
one-dimensional point, and to himself  as a multidimensional space.
Further, by means of complex reasoning and theorems he attempted to
prove the insignificance of her “single point” existence. As a reward,
he was hit on the head with a paper folder, before which he was promised
that all his multidimensionality will get shaken out of him, and then
they both laughed like little kids, although a moment ago they might
have been mortal enemies.
From these two examples we see that Huxley-identicals are also inclined
to combine their strong functions. Identity relationship can be good for
a family when both partners are of sensing types. In this case, both
will be interested in managing the household. There are several examples
of wonderful couples in which both spouses are of types Dreiser, Gabin
or Stirlitz.
For intuitive types this is more difficult - neither of them has
interest in the prosaic, but alas, necessary household chores. They are
much more interesting in talking and discussing some new information or
interesting problems. Relations of this kind are more likely to be
productive at work, especially if each has an interest in the field of
knowledge of another. Two representatives of type Dostoevsky can
sufficiently enrich each other in the related fields of human studies,
if one of them is, say, a psychologist, and the other - a medic.
Likewise, other identical couples should be examined in their own right.
Here, much depends on their level of development, the extent of their
interests, and possible overlaps in their spheres of activity.
Chapter 10. Kindred Relations.
¶
Both partners experience the world very similarly in the scope of the
function, which occupies the 1st channel (the functions are the same).
Where it comes to business cooperation, the relationship may prove to be
quite fruitful if partners have common interests and they take care of
the weak functions of each other.
But if their interests diverge, the relationship can be unpleasant,
sharp, irritating. Here are two examples of these relations (types
Hamlet and Hugo).
Girl of type Hugo is telling the story:
Hugo - Hamlet (ESE-EIE)
When dating we loved each other - both are emotional, especially he
liked me with his eloquence. We became close quickly. Although he is by
nature a pessimist, he liked my optimism, my constant good mood. My
jocularity could somewhat redeem his desire to dramatize everything.
He was quite unable to be alone, he always needed for interested
students. I was glad that needs me, it boosts my mood, I wanted to do
for him as much enjoyable.
It turned out that the first period of our acquaintance was just
wonderful, but the further the relationship became more complicated. His
predictions about anything had always been negative, I also wanted to
get away from the unpleasant his predictions (pressure on BI). He could
quite accurately predict my reaction to a given situation, and began to
use it to manipulate me (again pressure on BI). Besides, he never
compromised.
Once, after a long absence, he called me, saying the date of arrival,
and asked to meet. But then I was seriously ill and was unable to
fulfill his request. No arguments did not convince him, for he had only
one thing is clear: not met. This greatly offended him. Gradually his
defiant resentment and insulted me become annoying. He has already
offended at my jokes … Well, now he is unhappy that I was too “down to
earth” person, and his lofty impulses do not find in me a response …
Here is another version of the same relationship of sociotypes
(Hamlet’s eyes):
My girlfriend by type - Hugo. She kept fluttering on her face - a good,
open smile. Like comfort, loves to entertain, love to give presents. We
can take an hour to talk to her on the phone, wondering how alike we see
the world around us. I feel that my imagination, tragic twists, love the
heat - all of it very interesting, but she can not live like this. I
also like the fact that she is well versed in the world of things,
making the right purchase, creates comfort in the room.
When the two of us going to the birthday party, I usually write poetry,
draw a card, find all kinds of original ribbons, labels and so on, it
provides a box of chocolates, cream or perfume. And together - get a
great gift, from which good mind and heart.
Within a few years of friendship, we never had an argument. Still have a
very common is that we both fall in love with ballroom dancing. But she
began to dance before me, so I am pleased to learn that she can not yet
know how I am. Often turn to her for advice, and like both of us.
In these two examples noteworthy dissimilarity perception of the world
by both partners, despite the fact that their first channels - one and
the same function. In Hamlet is a dramatic, pessimistic, anxious
fantasies … Hugo, on the contrary, tends to a joyful, optimistic
perception of the world. The first example is obvious pressure on SNS,
in the second, on the contrary, mutual assistance on weak functions:
economic-friend Hugo creates comfort artistry Hamlet, and he, in turn,
enriches the world with its enchanting fantasy.
The following example. Student psycho Balzac describes his relationship
with his friend psycho Yesenin:
Balzac - Esenin (ILI-IEI)
We have a neighbor with a lot in common in nature, we both like to lie
on the bed and dream, only a dream - about various things. A full
understanding of us and on the order of the day, we can say that our
common motto - “no order”. With us live another man (his psycho
Robespierre).
It happens that we are trying to introduce it in a reasonable, in his
view, the way of life. Then we Esenin unite, and each object in its I
logically, Yesenin - emotionally. If he does not understand something,
I’m not hard to explain it to him.
But there is in us, and the differences. In any matter, I like to get to
the root of the problem, am pedantic, and he anticipates good event, not
paying attention to details. So happens that we do not quite understand
each other.
In this story, remarkable not only for the understanding of the 1st
function (“solidarity” on the part of laziness and disorder), but a
different perception of the world and for the same function. Balzac
“digs deep into the” looking for rational problem; Yesenin captures an
image, hint, the overall picture. And both are able to support each
other’s weak functions.
We have repeatedly emphasized that the nature of the relationship is
highly dependent on the distance of communication. Here is an example
for the same psycho Balzac - Yesenin married life.
My husband is a psycho Balzac. Sverhpunktualny, sometimes even boring.
But it works very much if there is a mood and need, and know how to do
it. When severe, it seems somewhat dissatisfied, angry. “Scared” of all
my friends. One (Jack) said: “When I see E., felt ashamed. The man works
as we speak nonsense, no - thing to do. Yes, and prevent him, also. “
The main problem of our relationship and the main source of quarrels -
his and my “insensitivity” in certain things. He believes that to attend
to a person means, in the first place - to do something for him. It does
not matter which kind, and with what words. And demand the same from
others. Therefore, if he asked me to do something, and I forgot (because
it is not considered very important - yes, it is necessary to wash the
bottles, sew a button, check the text for errors, but it can and then),
and he did not remind me , it then begins: “You do not care about my
request, and I, too”; such rants I just put out. And, though I blame
offended even more: to throw these words because neprishitoy buttons? Or
is it the last straw? And what am I to vex him so? And so he, in turn,
does not understand me: because of what I sprayed and in tears? But he’s
so easy to say, for the greater credibility. He does not think so. Is
what I want to quarrel.
Recent typical episode. We go to the pharmacy. I am submitting a recipe,
return it to me - there is no any print. I am in the perturbation of a
nurse, giving me the recipe, said nothing else. I hasten to share your
feelings with your husband. Waiting to answer something like: “Yes, a
nurse, of course, all mixed up, but you do not worry - now we get to
clinics and stamped.” And I hear, “Well, I’ll always say that you have
to be careful, I had to ask to clarify …” None of my arguments do not
help: my fault, and that’s it. And, feeling my inner aversion generally
correct, but absolutely useless and even harmful in this situation, the
words, he is a worse by further developing his idea, not paying
attention to my request, “Enough already, let’s not talk about that.” As
a result, I was hysterical, he is angry and offended: like a harmless,
quiet conversation, and I like looking for a quarrel. Where he is wrong?
Is it bad when you’re once again reminded of what we need to be more
attentive to everything, especially when it comes to you personally? My
argument that the instructions to choose the time, and indeed for any
words - and the time and form - are perceived negatively, saying that if
it is to think of each phrase - how and when to say it - it will lose a
lot of time, effort , do not go crazy, at least, will be close to that.
I, in turn, almost in a rage and I find time for all this? And what
happens if I start talking everything without an internal censorship? He
told me: “Speak. Why hoard a rage? It is better to throw out once and
forget. ” The fact that there are things you forget very difficult,
almost impossible, he does not understand, he wants. Or not. Word for it
- it is, almost insignificant things. Not to mention the tone, facial
expression, etc. For me, unfortunately, it is almost the main source of
information about the attitude of people. Moreover, it is important to
all: and what, and how, and when.
If he did not do anything, at my request, I really easy it is to
forgive. I can not see and do not experience even mild annoyance.
Recently, however, there is a desire to see vengeance: that’s how, and
he? And it is only out of revenge for his past too frequent comments
about my careless disregard for and to him personally. But when I
noticed even in a joking manner, he will survive, as if made a serious
mistake and really blame me.
In this sad story is very characteristic appearances of the 2nd channel
of the spouses. One is sure that at all times it is only suitable course
of action: Yesenin said the most important emotional involvement, Balzac
- practical aid. Since, moreover, the 2nd function of each partner puts
pressure on the CND, the couple often quarrel. Unfortunately, in a
relationship is hard to avoid the strong pressure on SNS functions, if
this is initially incorporated in the structure of psycho.
Chapter 11. Superego Relations.
¶
Here, the functional connections “cross” on the 2nd and 3rd channels,
while the 1st channels of partners contain different functions.
It may be that one partner helps another in areas where the second
partner feels insecure. A. Augustinavichiute considered these relations
to be quite comfortable, often amiable and nonconflicting, albeit
superficial. Other socionists describe them, to the contrary, as very
tense and dangerous due to unexpected blows delivered on weak functions
of partners. The author of this book has encountered both the first kind
and the second kind of relationships of superego. Apparently, personal
characteristics of partners, the scope of their activities, their social
status play a decisive role in determining the quality of these
relations.
Let us refer to some examples.
Here are two brief description of relations between Dreiser and
Robespierre (both from point of view of Robespierre):
Robespierre - Dreiser (LII-ESI)
1. He is a man of very economical, but doing something can calmly
arrange temporary mess. Of course, then it is all for a take away, but I
was often annoying, especially if you mess touch my things. I always
think that one could do without all of time and effort.
I’m doing him a remark often - quite strongly, and he is offended and
very long then pouts at me. Nevertheless, my desire for order and its
business side to help us, if required, for example, have a spring
cleaning.
2. We’ve known for many years. My relationship with him - this is my
pain. We can not say that we have an open conflict with it, rather, I
would have called it - “a heavily armed neutrality.” At the beginning of
our acquaintance, it was very good, it was I particularly pretty, but
then began rubbing. At times he seemed secretive and even a little
angry. I often ran into him senseless obstinacy. Sometimes, despite my
strong case that it should be done like this, it still makes his own
way, even if it turns out to harm. It just seems to me that irritates me
is the ease with which I can solve the problem …
Both stories, as we see, find enough tension in the relationship. The
first - a strong logic function Robespierre hurt irrational, in his
view, a way of bringing order, used by Dreiser. On the other hand, the
harsh comments of the rationalist-Robespierre hurt hurt the ethical
function of Dreiser. The tension arises because of the difference
function for the first channel.
In the second case, the tension caused by certain cross-action functions
of the second and third channels: on the one hand - unpleasant for
Robespierre, stubbornness Dreiser (volitional sensing), on the other -
“insulting” to ease tasks Dreiser Robespierre (strong intuition, coupled
with logic).
The next pair:
Gabin - Esenin (SLI-IEI)
I do not know why, but I cannot feel comfortable when my sister (type
Esenin) begins to dream that in the future she will have a rich husband,
travel, fame, and so on. I resent the fact that she is completely
confident in all of this, but not anything really going to take to
achieve their dreams. In the family, she always attracts everyone’s
attention, it all admire (in my opinion, quite unfairly), and for my
share of attention is somehow remains. I think all this is unfair and
periodically “pull off” this dreamer to earth. Begin grievances,
conflicts, but it does not last. In the end, my sister is my best friend
almost.
The ending of this story may sound surprising, but do not forget that
the strong function not only can “push”, but also to support! It all
depends on the good will and cultural level partners.
The next pair - representatives psycho Don Quixote and Napoleon:
Don Quixote - Napoleon (ILE-SEE)
My buddy (psycho Napoleon) inhibits me with his leadership. Often my
independent statements spoil his mood, I have to restrain myself,
sometimes - to please him, and that I did not like it. He always
overestimates his abilities, he really did not like it if I overtake him
in some case, because he believes that all must be first. So often I
have to hide their abilities from it. In our relations with it - as an
icebreaker, which cuts in front of you all, and I, as a small boat,
which followed him. This irritates me.
Perhaps because of this mutual irritations arise even with all the
ridiculous argument. Once in the dining room, I found that I was missing
for 30 cents compote, and I took them from him. He ate it all faster
than me, and waiting until I’m done, found it necessary to remind you:
- Do not forget that you owe me 30 cents!
It was too much, and to annoy him, I said:
- Nothing, I do not have to.
This is my joke and remained unappreciated, he got angry, drank my
compote and left.
Obviously, in this case, a strong function of one of the partners
(volitional sensation Napoleon) is so expansive that it was her action
and is a constant source of conflict. Don Quixote, for its part, also
gives a lot of trouble to Napoleon for its strong function: in
situations where action is required intuition, it is clearly stronger,
and this is bound to annoy Napoleon used to the sense of his own
superiority.
Above, we have repeatedly stressed that socionics considers the problem
of partnership “other things being equal.” But in life, it is rare, most
people for some reason are in an unequal position, and such a seemingly
symmetrical relationships as relationships superego, can lead to severe
and sometimes dramatic consequences if the partners by force of
circumstances placed one above the other and are not able to increase
the psychological distance communication. This is even more true for
those who are forced to live under one roof.
Below we present the story of a woman (psycho Dostoevsky) about her
relationship with her grandmother (psycho Maxim) during her childhood.
Dostoevsky - Maxim (EII-LSI)
The greatest impact on my future grandmother had. The mother of my
mother, she came to us when I was only 9 years old. Of adult
conversations, I knew that my grandmother had lived a hard life, from
childhood - a servant, married - under the heel of the
grandfather-tyrant.
Other relations, but to demean or humiliate someone, she did not know.
Very quickly, in our family, I was for her a “scapegoat” in which you
can recoup, pluck anger, who can give a constant annoyance, irritation.
In it, she found, apparently, the ability to assert itself. Such it
contributed to me my perfect unanswered, inability to resist such
pressures.
Then all I do is attributed to the hard life of a grandmother and even
felt sorry for her, despite the fact that I do with her life was
desperately ill.
I remember how, in the spring, on the way home from school, when I was
in 6th grade, I fell through the ice chest of a small river, which
passes. Ran home - teeth are gone, water flowed from the clothes. Hide
from my grandmother did not. When she saw that I was trying to undress,
standing near a warm battery, and next - a pool of water, I rolled my
grandmother scandal. Within 2 hours, until the parents came home from
work, she shouted at me, running around, spitting and waving his hands,
and without giving me any undress or change clothes.
It is not that my grandmother was only evil. There were times
(unfortunately, rather short) when it seems to be thawing. This occurs
most often after returning from church. Visit to the temple to reassure
her, she became quiet and friendly. During such lulls could she suddenly
tasty feed me or even make platishko summer. Mother, always a busy,
never thought about what goes into her daughter. Every day, coming home
from school, I tried to catch suspicious by all accounts mood
grandmother tried to foresee what awaits me today …
I knew that I deserve grandmother location could only be if looked
downtrodden and unhappy - it’s as if her life easier, she created a more
favorable psychological background: since her life was a failure, even
if others suffer. So when one day his father brought me a gift skates
with shoes, I said with pain in his heart: “I do not need!”
Father, expecting my joy and gratitude, was surprised and hurt, and I
could not explain to him that going to the rink to me is suicide, the
grandmother I never forgive, because even at the holiday table, if I
reach out for something tasty , immediately felt a kick under the table
legs grandmother, meaning: do not touch it!
I knew even then that is something to explain to parents and even more
to complain - completely useless. Father had believed that his work - to
work and bring home money, relationship problems in the family it did
not seem concerned. Speaking of mother, she preferred to go to a smaller
home, little interest in her daughter’s life, and in all situations,
guilty only reason I turned out. My real life is totally dependent on
her grandmother’s location (for example, on whether it will feed me or
not).
Most importantly, what my grandmother was trying to demonstrate to all
its necessity, was cleaning the apartment. Her “fetish” was mopping. But
if I were to somehow win her favor, trying to wash the floor - it did
not suit her, she began to wash it again, saying: “Povozyut, povozyut
cloth and think it is clean!” This was accompanied by a loud throwing
shoes and annoyed grunt. It was clear that to please her would never be
able to …
Such a life turned around for me, a serious disorder of the nervous
system, I could not sleep for more than two hours a day, had to go into
akademotpusk (when I was in my 3rd year of college.) But the vacation
was over, and my health has not changed, as life is the same, and I
worked with the utmost exertion of man with almost no sleep.
One day I was sitting at his desk, suffering over a proof of the
theorem, and my grandmother started a cleaning floors. With a
demonstrated grunting and groan she began to climb on his lap around the
table at which I sat, trying to shove more feasible with a wet rag my
legs. And here, for the first time in many years of abuse and
humiliation, I got away. Tremors covered all my body, I jumped up from
his chair, grabbed him and slammed to the floor, began to shout, almost
beside himself:
- Yahoo! I hate you! Yahoo!
My grandmother looked at me totally astonished eyes, then quietly went
into another room. Gradually the tremors subsided, I came to …
Grandmother sat silently for a long time on his bed. Then suddenly
confused voice asked:
- Why are you not had something to tell me about it?
Perhaps she even loved me in his own way. Still, I was her assistant
thus “valve” that allows her to throw out all the anger, accumulated in
it for her a long life … It is unlikely, however, she was aware that
she does with me.
We add that the weakness of intuition and ethical function of Maxim
hinder understanding the internal state of another person, if it is not
expressed directly.
So, we met with the superego relations with various examples, most of
them negative. But I would like to invite the reader to think about it:
imagine that in the last example psycho grandmother and granddaughter
are reversed …
It is unlikely that Dostoevsky would have on someone losses, especially
on the native people, besides still underage. A granddaughter psycho
Maxim just touches to his grandmother, Dostoevsky accuracy and
integrity! What if we assume psycho grandmother and grandson Don Quixote
psycho Napoleon? It is possible that in this case the “victim” was a
grandmother.
Given all this, the author once again I would like to caution the reader
of straight pins: in any case, we should be based on knowledge of psycho
both partners, their social status and cultural level, to try to figure
out how to show themselves or that Jung’s functions in a particular
situation .
In relations superego, as well as in the related, there is a possibility
of pressure function of the 2nd channel to SOS partner - so possible
conflicts. But if the partners are respectful to each other, understand
what the weakness of another, and seek to help, using its strong
function - in this case, they will be able to cooperate successfully.
Chapter 12. Business Relations.
¶
In these relations, there is equality of the second and third functions,
but the first functions are unequal. Therefore, it is logical to expect
smooth, calm relations where partners make contact over functions of
their second channels.
In this case it is possible to provide help from one’s 1st channel to
the 4th channel of the partner, which contain similar functions of
different orientation.
If there are no mutual affairs in the area of second function, then the
inequality of the functions of the first channels can lead to confusion
and even tensions.
This is a story of business relations between two female students:
Robespierre - Dostoevsky (LII-EII)
Her psycho - Dostoevsky, my - Robespierre. We have a very close
relationship: perhaps because our interests are the same and we have
together is easier to learn. We are writing modules on physical
chemistry. Asking each other questions, we will better understand the
material.
When I tell her any topic related to a strict logical analysis, I’ll
still repeat and better remembered. Together we go to sports training
and on the way home discuss our successes and failures.
True, I am always surprised by her comments about people’s reaction to
their actions. For example, our coach likes to occasionally show off
their achievements - it is terribly nervous, saying that unethical? I
did not attach any special meaning. What man wants to talk about
himself, why he did not do this? Since we did not lose anything, and he
was pleased.
In the dorm we live in different rooms. I think it is very good: I
sometimes annoy her monologues about morality and immorality …
This example is a good illustration of everything that has been said
about the business relationship. The assimilation of new material,
ensuring the inclusion of mutual interests intuition capabilities (both
this - function of the 2nd channel). Here and help from the 1st function
- an explanation of analytical tasks to someone who is worse to
understand them (Dostoevsky). But the interests of the functions of the
first channels clearly differ: tremulous interest Dostoevsky to matters
of morality does not call for support from Robespierre, he is inclined
to forgive the sins of his neighbor … Now, if Robespierre was in a
conflict with someone, which for him means a lot - to understand this
could help Dostoevsky and probably would be able to resolve the
conflict.
And here is an example of his great business relationship, so to speak,
“pure” form, between grandfather and grandson, described by a bystander:
Don Quixote - Zhukov (ILE-SLE)
My neighbors on the plane were kind of good-natured old man and a boy of
six. The old man looked anxiously in the crossword. Guile upset him, and
he caught my eye, complained:
- Do not know how we make puzzles. After all, the main task of which?
Deliver the joy of solving a person, on the one hand, and to give the
chance to make trouble - on the other. Tinker, but guess, but here what?
“A mathematician, whose name is given for the convergence of real
numbers”! Well, which is guesses? And no one knows where to look, and do
not know who to ask …
I laughed. Grandpa, it seems, was quite sincere when he complained about
the lack of sources of information, did not try to get an answer from a
neighbor in a mini-skirt on such a complex issue. I told him:
- Look, fit, “Cauchy”?
Cauchy approached. Thus ensued my acquaintance with retired collective
farmers Nikolai Ivanovich and his grandson Volodya. Learning that my
hands sotsionicheskie tests, grandfather felt an urge to immediately get
tested and test yourself grandson. Test gave a result grandfather - Don
Quixote, and his grandson - Zhukov.
After my explanation of what this means, Nikolai, satisfied that he was
in the company of Tsiolkovsky and Einstein, said:
- How long have I wanted to Volodya I churchyard, so parents will not
let go. I’m not counting on it, and now grandson take it and say:
“Direct my benefits do not see! Fresh air, fresh milk, and then - I’m
going to my grandfather, that he, the evil desires? “Thought and
released. In general, he is - is able to convince. I somehow feared that
his village is not our guys beat, and he taught the first day of the new
game and beat himself on the morning of his new comrades already at 8
per perpetrator. Daughter and son-in-feared “Namuchaetes you with it,
Dad, he always stands on his stubborn, and even so he will explain
everything that you’ll be a fool!” I have something and he was afraid
that he bored me to be … It turned out - no. I read the book - sits,
listens carefully, the story is told - questions are asked, makes
interesting observations. Watch TV together, discuss, everything is
peaceful, no worries. And I think that they themselves are to blame,
paying little attention to the son. If I had not, he still would not
know how to count … But mathematics, as Lomonosov said, the mind in
order leads. I will assume its three-year plan is to teach …
Is not it lucky with his grandfather’s grandson? And by the way there
was a community function (they have - logical) Channel 2! Grandson
immediately realized the benefits of communicating with his grandfather
and had his way, using the same arguments of the function, and in
support of it - all the might of his strong-willed sensory …
But not all so idyllically in business relationships, if both partners
are closely linked to one of its functions-channel. There is and
dislike, and even conflict, it would be clearly seen from the following
(in my opinion, just great) story, whose author - a girl student of
psycho-Yesenin strong intuitive subtype.
About it writes in the third person:
Esenin - Dumas (IEI-SEI)
Living in the same room for two years took the form of a quiet civil
war. Yesenin girl, constantly living in dreams, absorbed personal lives,
dreams, hopes, was completely self-absorbed, as if contemplating the
surroundings and leaving only the heart that touched the strings of the
soul: a look a loved one, a terrific symphony (or other) music,
generative images, poems, diary entries … Walking along the street, it
does in other vital areas, and therefore did not see friends. Coming to
his dorm room, she dreamed only of peace and quiet - especially about
loneliness! - To savor it while listening to your favorite music. Only
in those moments she felt herself, not adjusted for any who (“How
disgusting!”) And enjoy the natural environment.
The Roommate (psycho Dumas) did not like to dream. Only occasionally
visited her childhood memories, and the two of them indulged in, finding
much in common, when we remembered children’s games … But Dumas is
quickly tired, it was more interested in th
How is irritated gatherings Esenina! These daily challenges Dim, Stasov,
Nin … All of this order, will act on her nerves. Of course, it was
only interested in herself her favorite and 5-6 people … The rest of
the world was, in fact, irrelevant.
Girl-Dumas is always concerned about the cleanliness of the room, but
from the point of view of Esenina, this purity was some “crazy”,
“looping.” Dumas also annoyed that Yesenin behaves “sloppy, just mocks
her works, does not do anything until you remind!” This is her sometimes
madden, and she started yelling at Esenina to bring it out of “apathy”
she thought. A girl Yesenin just forget about the environment! She had
to quietly, without irritation and screaming, to hint at the household
duties … What it must have felt when, in a state of emotional turmoil,
insight, with wide-open eyes and a beating heart, just write a line:
You - my character, my sense
my way, my light,
You - surprise
you - inspiration …
and so on,
suddenly heard a cry Dumas: “What a bastard again did not make junk!
Sluts! “- That she’d have done? - It just broke flat face on the
pavement (so it seemed), she started to shake hands, voice. Feeling
morally suppressed this “down to earth” girl, she barely held back from
physical violence, the desire to start something bad in her head,
grabbed her arm (which, incidentally, is how I will do), just to silence
this fanatic, roughly killed her muse! And holding his hand cocked,
Yesenin gentle voice said Dumas
- It was possible and ponezhnee ask me take out the trash, I can not
stand a child, when I was yelling!
Do I have to describe the feelings of Dumas
- Dowd unsociable! Exasperate! Does not respond to the comments, and
even reaches into the fray! And it is - a girl!
Yesenin once spent all day in a tragic mood. I remembered the friends
who betrayed behold, the house, which is so far away … Heart ached.
She opened the window. Dusk … Stars …
Found some some rope on the floor. Matches. Set fire to it … Crawled
light. Beautiful, living flame against the evening sky! She focused her
attention on him. That’s - life. It also burns, it is fleeting … The
rest - the death of … Stars … It became a little easier. The pain
seemed gone, passed on this fire … Ask the line:
I see bright colors, unbridled,
I see a convex hot,
I see the glare, silver burning,
I see the abyss, tantalizingly-sticky …
Then breaks into the room Dumas, coughing from the smoke, screams:
What kind of neighbor! Burns my shoelaces! Opens in the cold, and every
night I have to sleep with socks!
Yesenin:
- Please, do not cry, my tragic mood.
Dumas continued to shout:
- Do you always tragic mood! You do not care about others!
I could cite many more examples, but is it worth? They are very much
different, these girls.
This story brilliantly characterizes psycho Esenina. Dumas described,
perhaps, with some passion - the relationship is clearly running high,
and the usual conformity of Dumas, the desire to resolve all conflicts
here, alas, exhausted from the constant misunderstanding.
The attentive reader will obviously already knew the reason for
conflict: to communicate constantly faced function 1-channel. Dreaminess
Esenina can not get along with the desire for sensual comfort Dumas. The
result: a function of two-channel - the ethics of emotions - poured
negative feelings! This last fact is very interesting: it turns out the
same functions with great success may be involved in the conflict, and
in this case they are - does not guarantee understanding.
Well, if you imagine that the two representatives of the psycho, such as
writing a play together? Both - owners of good literary style? Then the
dreamer-Esenin could offer an interesting plot, trivial events, and
Sensorik-Dumas couched it all in juicy vivid images, and the result
would be great! Then, of course, their relationship would have developed
very differently.
Chapter 13. Activity Relations.
¶
Activity relations are quite favorable, although not to the same extent
as the dual relations, because here strong function of the 2nd channel
of one partner activates the weak function of the other, located in the
4th channel.
Relationships are symmetrical, but there is no full compensation as in a
dual relationship. Partners grow tired of each other due to the
different rhythms of life due to one partner being a rational type, the
other - an irrational type.
Here are a few examples. A girl of type Esenin tells of her relationship
with her mother of type Maxim.
Esenin - Maxim (IEI-LSI)
Me and my mother in all affairs responsibilities are shared as if by
themselves, so we feel the pleasure of working together. Both of us are
very fond of the garden. I’m just in awe of that charm, which it grows.
The mother in this sense gardening passion.
Well we are able to prepare meals together especially when coming
holidays. I - Lavish emotion (usually positive) of upcoming pleasures,
fantasize, navozhu mom to different practical ideas which she then
summarizes and pealizuet. The result is excellent and the mood, and a
great pie and cake, all of which are usually done on time and
beautifully decorated.
Usually, I turn to my mother for practical advice that are always
useful. Any help that I can only be in need, she was able to do.
Mom loves sports and always shakes them to do, brushing my chord
excitement. It leads me in the spring for a run in the woods, and we run
all summer, and in winter I told her part of the company in the gym,
where we do aerobics or just recharging.
Only we do not undertake, together with my mother! And hungry for Bragg,
and cold water poured on Ivanov … We even sew together: mom makes big
things, and I - the “wings”, helping her or do any useful household
stuff.
As you can see, the activation of this, she filled with positive
emotions, much like dual relationship, which is not surprising, since
dual - the same strong features as that of the activator, but they are
in reverse order. But in this case, probably a function of the 2nd
channel mom-Maxim (volitional sensing) is so strong that it practically
stands in relation to his daughter as a dual.
Here is another version of activation (Stirlitz - Huxley). The story is
told from the girl’s face psycho Stirlitz.
Stirlitz - Huxley (LSE-IEE)
It all started when I wanted to celebrate the New Year with my
grandmother, and my parents would not let me alone - then I was barely
12 years old. So I went with my aunt, I just called Natasha, despite the
fact that it is almost 20 years older than I was. On the train to
Barnaul - 5 hour drive, but for me, it flew by.
It is with interest and admiration to listen to my stories, arguments,
logical construct that is just inspired me. Natasha also told me many
stories about themselves, their friends, with whom she went on camping
trips, hikes on themselves. For me it was very interesting, because I
myself love to travel.
That New Year flew for me very quickly and I wonder (as well as for
Natasha, in her own words). I feel like I got a boost of energy, and
since I spend every New Year in Barnaul with Natasha, and within a year
I try as often as possible to go and see her. If we do not see each
other for a long time, we begin to call each other and find out which
one of us when he was able to come. We now simply the first necessity of
life - the opportunity to sit together and talk. When Natasha arrived, I
immediately save all cases, even if the exam tomorrow, because of
communication with her, I get so much fun and such a reserve of energy
that follow night sitting at my books easily, without fatigue. And as
the holidays, we can sit with each other day and night. It is true that
in the end it makes me tired, because I used to sleep at night, and
Natasha sleeps more in the morning and in general can do three or four
hours of sleep per night.
When we go to the country, she will sleep it off, then it will be a long
time together and finally say, “Let’s go to the next train!” Of course I
am reluctant to wait another two hours, I start to rush it, we run run
to the station, and Along the way she wonders why I need to keep up with
it on this train. But I have - a plan that I can hardly alter.
When I go on holiday I always cleaned the room, they dress up. If you
got some sort of a thing, for example, an old toy, I’ll fix it and put
somewhere, and Natasha walks and was surprised that I have all things
find their place, she says she would never have guessed so much to do
…
But Natasha will comfort me peace. And it is, moreover, a good
understanding of the causes of human actions. I can only say that
someone did so. She can immediately feel and explain why people did
that, and I still think, “God, how I had not guessed?”
Clearly, in the above example, the relationship of activation are
perceived by both partners as a highly favorable - mostly because each
receives from the other is a strong function of the support that he
greatly needed. Against this background, some discomfort due to the
difference of the functions 1-channel is perceived as annoying, but
easily avoidable worldly hindrance, is not so important and it is
forgivable … But this is not always the case.
Here is a small example for the same psycho when this discomfort,
despite the mutual goodwill of partners, is seen not so rosy:
My dad is a psycho Stirlitz, and I belong to the psycho Huxley. When I
ask him to explain something to me, then he does it very easy to
understand and clear, but when we need to do something together, I just
can not wait until he finally finished his part. I have especially hard
when he says something: before the story tell itself, it thoroughly
introduces characters, while still telling their relatives to the third
degree, then another background - and does not like when he was
interrupted by or ask to delete unnecessary details.
If it does for me some purchase, then the thing is always very
appropriate. But I do not like to go shopping with him, too meticulous
and detail it all there is to learn …
If he thought of something, it is very difficult to adjust, even if the
conditions are not changed dramatically in his favor. As we were going
to go hiking in the Altai, but learned that there this season is very
bad weather. We then had the opportunity to travel to Almaty, instead of
the Altai, but since my father decided to go to the Altai … there we
mokli two weeks.
And in this case the relationship is, of course, respectful and
friendly, but dad-Stirlitz obviously too accentuated by its strong
features. Due to their inertia, he now and then “stuck” on it, and it
turns out that any of its pre-planned decision on it has much more power
than the circumstances are! And here, he wants to or not, it is starting
to be a strong function of the source of discomfort for the people close
to him, and in this situation, only their understanding and love can
help to avoid direct conflict.
In the same field of industrial relations activation can be very
favorable - again, provided the individual psycho meets his old
activities. Huxley the same as the provider of scientific ideas and
their active Stirlitz developer would have been a great pair.
Chapter 14. Quasi-Identical Relations.
¶
Here the partners have crossing contacts over their weak functions.
Function of their leading blocks are the same, but have different
positions and orientation, thus they often share common interests.
However, to each of them it often seems as if the other is somehow
inferior to himself, though, also does something much better, without
there being an obvious reason for it …
Since there is no direct connection between their strong and weak
functions, conflicts in this relationship are rare. If in future
cooperation does not make sense, partners easily part. However, if
working together is favorable, they just as easily establish contact.
Let us consider a few examples. Balzac talks about his roommate (type
Robespierre).
Balzac - Robespierre (ILI-LII)
My relationship with him made up of small conflicts that arise almost
from scratch. His reason exasperated that, in his opinion, I always sit
back, while he - constantly learning. Often he is offended if you
indicate on his weaknesses and to cast doubt on strong.
Despite this, we have a lot in common. For example, he and I, well solve
logical problems, although they spend much more time.
He constantly tries to establish any strict schedule, but usually meets
my resistance. Inability to drive me in his scheme leads to the fact
that he was nervous and angry.
Notice that in this example, one of the partners (Balzac) understands
the nature of the existing relationship (difference axis rationality -
irrationality), but to change this fact, naturally, he can not. When
living together in the same room it’s quite uncomfortable, the rhythm of
life one is in conflict with the rhythm of the life of another. Besides
Balzac - as it should be criticized - can not help but comment and
guidance, which naturally irritates Robespierre. Although their common
interests (both learn a specialty), but there is some friction due to
the different methods of solving problems: intuitive-logical Balzac
first attempts to predict the solution, and logical-intuitive
Robespierre begins with calculations - in this case, of course, everyone
thinks your way to the most correct. Why these people can help each
other in their most powerful features? Because this support would extend
the functions of the second channel, which are also strong, and each
partner requires a fairly high capacity for self-criticism, so at least
something to recognize the inconsistency here … That is, again we come
up against a level of personal culture, which in this case, can help
solve a lot of “slippery” problems.
The following two examples - the relationship people psycho Huxley and
Hamlet (both Huxley - a girl and Hamlet - a young man)
Huxley - Hamlet (IEE-EIE)
Went one day my friend and his girlfriend to the market. “Well - I think
- once went so far, it will bring something good: we just ran out of
food …” Here they come home. I open the door, and they are something
hidden behind.
I asked:
- What have you got there? Surprise, huh? Something tasty?.
Buddy makes a theatrical gesture:
- Almost guessed!
I’ve got a bad feeling crept into the first … He sweetly at me and
asked:
- Say, Alejo, and thou shalt not swear?
Then I realized that my hopes were dashed. Said just in case:
- But what’s there … Okay, I will. Come on, show me.
- Well, look!
And they are taken out of the package of two rabbits jerk who
immediately start running around the room, adjusting to the new housing.
By the way, the fact that he asked me if I would swear - not by
accident. He’s always making some dirty trick, the remission of sins, I
asked … A purchase of this they have happened: they went on the
market, walked, looked different products overseas, and suddenly his
girlfriend saw granny with rabbits, pricked: what they are nice, and
felt an urge to buy them immediately. Stood, rooted to the spot, and on
the bazaar as roared: - Cro-a-Olika want-oo-oo!
Oh, and bought. Consensual. Interestingly, they often quarrel over
trifles, but that does not stop them getting along with each other. For
me, it is somewhat unusual and it seems strange.
Another example of the relationship of psycho:
My psycho - Huxley, and I have a good friend of psycho Hamlet. We
understand each other, but often quarrel because of trifles. One day he
had to prepare for the offset. He had not been on a few lectures, so
asked me to come to him, and to explain some strange problems.
Well, it’s right, does not tolerate delay. I threw in the direction of a
number of important to me matters. Come. Look: it lies on the bed and
reading a detective.
- Are you already work out today? - I’m still hoping.
- Not, - he says lazily, reluctantly putting aside the book.
- Slacker! Chronic slacker! Idiot! - I hate the verdict. - Grab your
books right now, we still have time to learn everything. He says
picturesquely stretching:
- I’m not in the mood today … And anyway, you-what? I also put a
couple, not you!
I’m going out, slamming the door. The next day he fails miserably in the
same offset. Comes to me miserably:
- I shlopotal …
- Well?
- Shlopotat pair.
- That’s fine. We had to teach, and not suffer foolishness - I summarize
cold.
- Of course, you’re right …
Ah, the humble view! Guilty eyes! Alas, I know that giving up, and I
know that he knows it. But hold on to their last bastion:
- Yesterday you, in my opinion, did not think so at all, and showered me
filth. Could and apologize!
He apologized, of course, agree. Though right now. But as nothing but
making this foolish theater stage. He raises his eyes to the ceiling,
falls to his knees and puts his hands in prayer:
- I’m shameless selfish, mean, and good-for-nothing … Ends with the
fact that I, as usual, I start to laugh, and I forgive him everything.
He knows how he can play on my feelings …
One day suddenly comes and says one teacher wrote a memo on it and now
it should be expelled from the university! I was very upset. I
immediately there was a set of plans to improve the situation: I am so
angry at his attackers, that began to shout something like, “Those who
dare to drive you have bad!”, Etc.
He admired my view, paused, and apparently satisfied produced effect,
suddenly calmly said that it is - just a joke … Good “joke”!
Of course, I lose my temper. We horrible quarrel. And the next day he
comes to me with a pained look, admits his mistakes, again makes me
laugh … and again, for the umpteenth time, I feel that I can not be
mad at him!
In both these cases relationships are significantly different hue. The
first is likely to dominate Huxley - the energy, the non-triviality,
paradoxical antics, and Hamlet these antics seem satisfied: for him they
are nothing like the opportunity to take part in the regular
representation of fun at the carnival of life. Partners mutually feed
each other: the first (Huxley), ingenuity, strong characteristic of his
functions, the ability to create non-standard situations, and the other
(Hamlet) - favorable emotional reaction to these situations, the
possibility of his artistic participation. The second case is not so
satisfactory. It leads Hamlet, and the lead, obviously exploiting
integrity and kindness partner. He - the manipulator. Conflicts with
concomitant dramatization, “played” them, as the notes, and only allows
infinite condescension Huxley hold such an alliance. But sooner or
later, if Hamlet’s tactics will not change, it may cause the final
breakup. Psychologically, Huxley is not that hard to give up such a
partner, especially after his “repertoire” she finally tired. Perhaps,
in this case, Huxley enhanced function of the 2nd channel - the ethics
of relations, which is why the antics of Hamlet, even those that
directly insult Huxley, in the end receive forgiveness. But the strength
of union here can not count.
Chapter 15, 16. Benefit Relations.
¶
These relations, just like relations of Supervision, are asymmetrical.
One partner, called the Benefactor, activates the weak 4th channel of
the Beneficiary. However, there is no reserve feedback here, since both
strong functions of Beneficiary do not affect the Benefactor.
This mechanism determines the nature of these relations: everything that
Beneficiary says or does to the Benefactor does not seem too important
and significant, while the Benefactor, by contrast, is seen by
Beneficiary as a significant figure - in the sphere of action of 2nd
function of the Benefactor (from this function the “order” is issued).
This order is very difficult not to carry out, because it is received by
4th channel of the Beneficiary, which is suggestible and not able to
critically evaluate the information on its own.
Here is what relations of Benefit look like from point of view of
Beneficiary (Shtirlits), who is subject to influence by his friend
(Napoleon):
Napoleon - Stirlitz (SEE-LSE)
She always strives to be a center of attention. In any company, even
complete strangers to her people, she said more than others, and loudest
of all. Strives to do everything herself. She feels better than she is,
no one will do. It is very emotional - easily offended and easily
forgets an insult.
To me it is sometimes too pressing their emotions. When falls a flood of
emotions, it stuns me, because I myself am quite bezemotsionalny people.
But it is not very much effect on me, because I spend a lot of time with
friends and sports. Particularly helpful in sports. After parting with a
friend, I feel unusually nervous, it irritates me. But after a workout,
hang out with friends and feeling a pleasant tiredness, I feel like
returning to my flat, calm, peaceful mood, where I love to be the most.
As you can see, the narrator (Shtirlits) found here a good safety valve:
it regularly relieves stress, resulting in communication with the
customer. But what if he had not been able to do it? Then the voltage
would accumulate to such an extent that would, after all, a serious
traumatic factor.
Here’s another version for the same psycho (this time it is on behalf of
girls Stirlitz)
Quite unexpectedly, he admitted to me in love. I was so stunned that she
could not answer at all, especially since on his part was not just
shyness or embarrassment, but even the most ordinary politeness. He
displayed such a rush of feelings that I hardly had time to “put up
billboards.” My resistance only irritated him. It happened that at the
time he moved away from me, but then it started again. Of such pressure,
I slowly began to give way, but was well aware that it is - just a
result of pressure on me, not my reciprocal feelings, and he seemed to
inspire me … I tried as little as possible to meet with him, but it
was not easy. If I tried to explain to him that we were just friends,
like you rationalize it as if he did not hear at all, my explanations
passed by his ears.
I think the turning point in the relationship came after I was in the
hospital - and even he did not call, did not say anything to me about
the upcoming surgery. He learned about it through the week of my
girlfriends came to me in that hour, but did not say anything about my
act. I think that it was not easy to come to terms with defeat, because
he used to be a leader, to command and control the feelings of other
people. But I could no longer tolerate the internal pressure and tension
experienced by being with him.
Now we have a good relationship, we’re just friends, but I do not know
for how long?
In this example, the following is important: the degree of energy level
function of the 2nd channel of the Customer. In this case, since the
customer - Napoleon, the effect of this function is propped up by the
pressure of the strong-willed “black” sensory (ES). In situations where
the client insists on a daily close contact, the pressure can become
unbearable.
But there are many other situations in which this kind of intertype
relations looks not only safely, but also quite beneficial.
Here’s how the girl-Yesenin talks about his mom, Dreiser:
Esenin - Dreiser (IEI-ESI)
I always listen to my mother’s advice. It is a man of very great
diligence, can not work at all, like a machine. If, for example, we
start to dig the beds in our garden, we had broken a little bit, we will
stay with Dad, we need to rest and talk. Mum will dig tirelessly, and
its site will be dug deeper and look smoother.
I need a vacation is not just because I’m tired, but also because I’m
just tired all the time to dig and dig. But if the mother is there,
then, rested a moment, I rush to shovel my thoughts: “We have to work,
and then my mother a couple of minutes will grumble - what I
bezdelnitsa.”
In reality, of course, I am terribly lazy. It happens that, doing
something serious, I find myself thinking that no longer do you need to
do, and I sit and dream of something extraneous.
In this example, the strong-willed mother activates sensory daughter,
and this is not seen as violence, but as a beneficial effect. If all
mothers were customers, they may “raise” a weak function of their
children for their own good, and in children it would not cause the
protest - all that says and does the customer for Podzakaznogo has the
power of suggestion.
It happens that the children act as customers in relation to their
parents, and not always it looks well. Here’s an example:
Esenin - Robespierre (IEI-LII)
My sister is a psycho Yesenin, and his father - a psycho Robespierre.
Every time I visited a business trip and stayed at their apartment, I
have heard the complaints and the one and the other. My sister used to
say that it is very difficult to “Batey” - silent all day, always
dissatisfied with his appearance, sometimes grumbles it - not so, then -
not so.
- I have a child I feel so bad and worthless, no-good, nowhere the, -
complained sister - he had me in no way supported, not raised
confidence, I always thought that I was stupid more …
Being a man of almost ascetic life, his father was constantly
dissatisfied sisters inability to keep house, take the money. One
(apparently, he kept thinking about the conversation with me, it was
felt that it is hard), he complained:
- Well, what do I do with it? How can you live in such chaos? That she
is going in the kitchen? Dirty dishes, cigarette butts - well, what’s a
man, he saw it all, wants to marry her? And recently, I see, two of the
carpet, which were folded behind a cupboard - disappeared. It turns out
she has them taken to the pawn shop! She, you know, debt! Is it possible
to live beyond their means? On clothes stretch one’s legs! But it
happens that there will be a razneschastnaya, crying, “Dad, give me some
money, I did not have enough … I have to … “Well, what to do, we
have to give, but every time I think that this time she gets out of a
difficult situation, and it is - the last time, but then the whole story
is repeated again and again.
Here, of course, the main disaster - carelessness daughter, her
inability to keep house and plan your budget, which is extremely
disappointing Papua Robespierre. How is the situation resolved? Very
simply, the daughter uses her emotions to put pressure on his father,
knowing that his father would not be able to resist this - and thus is
able to live at his expense.
As we see, in interpersonal relationships “social order” has the same
great value and a palette of shades, and all the other inter-type
options. Well, in business transactions?
There, these relationships can render great service if you know about
them in advance, and if you know how to use them. Options - endless.
Here is one of them. Imagine that both partners work in the theater and
play in one performance: the same Yesenin and Robespierre. In this case,
an order by the emotions certainly would encourage Robespierre, would
make him play much more varied than it might be with a partner of
another psycho.
As well as the audit, relations order form rings “Customer -
Podzakazny.” In socionics, they were called “ring of social order.” Each
of the 16 psycho for one - the Customer, for another - Podzakazny (of 4
Rings):
Don Quixote -> Hamlet -> Napoleon -> Stirlitz -> Don Quixote;
Dumas -> Maxim -> Balzac -> Dostoevsky -> Dumas;
Robespierre -> Gabin -> Dreiser -> Yesenin -> Robespierre;
Hugo -> Huxley -> Jack -> Zhukov -> Hugo.
A group of four people is the “ring of social order,” can very actively
to solve various creative tasks. Especially effective is the group of
eight, which includes two parallel rings, where there are four dual
pairs. Here is a mobilization of all forces members, increases mental
activity, on the one hand, and with almost no fatigue is felt as in
neighboring chains duals support each other, in the diagram above, this
situation occurs if involved the 1st and 2nd string together or 3rd and
4th together.
Chapter 17. Conclusions.
¶
Concluding the description of intertype relations, briefly summarize. We
discussed in detail the options of communication between people of
different psychological types in normal situations in which any person
is often. In numerous cases, we have found that in the life of contacts
do not always occur on the scenario, previously described in the
literature socionics.
Indeed, if the interaction takes place on the same features, occupying
one-third or one-4th channels, with few exceptions, the traditional
description socionic adequately reality, and, therefore, in these cases
socionic forecast the nature of communication in individuals most come
true. This refers to the pairs of dual, poludualnym, conflict and
reviznye.
If involved in communicating the same function, located in the 1-2-m,
2-3-m, 3-4-m channels, ie channels, not so much different in their
capacity as a 1-3rd and 1 - 4th channels, an important role is played by
other factors: the role of social partners, their age, culture, etc. In
such cases, the relationship may emerge in unpredictable ways. Another
thing - if they have already been established, then using the knowledge
of socionics, we can in each case to understand what’s going on.
Come on. In addition to traditional “Socionics” conflicts with the
pressure on vulnerable function third channel, we can quite confidently
say that no less severe conflicts may arise due to destruction of the
strong features of the 2nd and especially the 1st channel.
In connection with this important issue once again return to the
peculiarities of the lead 1 channel. We know that people are pretty sure
he is right, and what’s more - he can not escape the influence of their
leading function, its own man undoubtedly, he is constantly in her
captivity Maxim can not refuse to organize, Dreiser could not cease to
be a moralist, Napoleon can not give up leadership Stirlitz can not
ignore reality, Dumas can not live in discomfort, etc.
It is this overwhelming and indisputable set the function of the 1st
channel can also be a source of conflict, but of a different kind: in
the scope of its functions 1st person is absolutely sure of being right,
so it is difficult to put up with a different approach, a different
setting, and if This particular installation as the installation of a
self-confident function 1 channel, but the other person? We only note
that here we are talking about different functions. There may also be a
conflict - remember two girls psycho Yesenin and Dumas conflicting
because of excessive daydreaming and immersed in his own world of dreams
(BEE), the first and the desire to live in comfort and cleanliness (BS)
of the second. You read also about the many other examples of this kind.
Of course, all of the evidence does not detract from the value of
previous socionic conclusions. On the contrary, it is based on analysis
of socionics “behavior” socionic functions can look at each individual
case, in what is happening in reality. We have time and again we see
that it is socionics the key to understanding not only the motivation of
human behavior, but also describes the nature of the relationship
between people, only this character was more complex and multivariate
compared to how it was considered in the early stages of development
socionics.
The following is a complete table of relationships of all psycho with
each other. Analyzing the table intertype relations, we can see in it a
system - due intertype relations and psycho dichotomies in them
participating.
Table intertype relations [omitted]
The system is particularly evident if we imagine intertype relations as
suggested YB Zhuravlev not in a table, and, as shown in Figure 1, in the
form of a pie chart, placing the names of 16 types in a circle in a
specific order. The left semicircle hold introverts, and right -
extroverts. Each group is divided into sub-rational and irrational in
relevant quarters.
Scheme 1.
It is easy to see that types related by various relationships in the
scheme are very symmetrically. Quite naturally, the exact opposite
relationship corresponds to a diametrically opposite location in the
diagram types (Dumas - Napoleon, Jack - Robespier
Types, symmetric about the vertical axis (Stirlitz - Esenin Zhukov -
Dostoevsky) are in respect of the conflict, and the horizontal -
Activation (Esenin - Maxim, Jack - Napoleon). Types that take up space,
symmetric about the diagonal axis, with different “vertnosti” related
dual relationship - lines in the center of the diagram - (Dostoevsky -
Stirlitz, Napoleon - Balzac), and at the same - the superego (Esenin -
Gabin, Zhukov - Huxley). Positioned adjacent to the diagram corresponds
to the type of business relationships for irrational types (Balzac -
Gabin, Zhukov - Don Quixote) or related to the rational (Hamlet - Hugo,
Dreiser - Dostoevsky). Certain symmetry (offset by 1/4 circle) have a
mirror relationship to different types of “vertnosti” (Hamlet - Yesenin
Dreiser - Napoleon) and quasi - for the same (Balzac - Robespierre,
Hamlet - Huxley). Thus, charting can very clearly show the main types of
“equal” intertype relations.
For the “unequal” relationship - order and supervision - similar diagram
can also be constructed. However, it is reasonable to choose the
location of several different types in the scheme, while maintaining the
grouping by “vertnosti” and rationality. Figure 2 shows the diagram for
the audit. There are four closed rings revisions (eg Stirlitz - Dumas -
Hamlet - Balzac). The arrows indicate the direction of the Inspector
General to the auditee. A similar chart for ordering relations depicted
in Figure 3. As well as for auditing, there are four rings relations
order, but, in contrast to the audit, as a customer and Podzakaznogo are
representatives of one “vertnosti” (example ring Order Huxley - Hugo -
Zhukov - Jack). The last two graphs are for a single location, and types
can be combined.
Scheme 2. Supervision
Scheme 3. Benefit.
Note that the proposed method not only illustrates the patterns
described earlier intertype relations, but can be useful for a better
ordering of the material.