Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Conflict
¶
See also
Conflict observations
Back to
Intertype relations
Introduction
¶
Conflict
is the
intertype relation
considered to be the least comfortable and fulfilling psychologically.
One’s conflictor is the
quasi-identical
of one’s
dual <duality>
, so they may seem similar at first glance, despite being
polar opposites in terms of psychological compatibility.
Descriptions by various authors
¶
Valentina Meged, Anatoly Ovcharov
The most difficult type of relations. Partners try to impose their own
views on each other and don’t want to accept value of one another. This
leads to continuous suppression of one another. Partners notice the
slightest flaws in each other and often exaggerate them. They often
argue, disagree, don’t listen to one another, don’t accept each other’s
arguments. Even jokes and compliments are perceived incorrectly. All of
this does not contribute to development of sensitivity, mutual attention
to the needs and interests of another. Over time, the tension that
originates in exacerbating conflicts and constant desire to move away,
causes resentment. Such relationships are difficult in personal life and
work. At the beginning, while dating and still maintaining some
psychological distance, conflict partners are often sympathetic to each
other, admire each other’s strengths, talk about their interests,
exchange their opinions. When they transition to more frequent and close
contact, mutual irritation and misunderstandings arise. It is advisable
to adhere to traditions and discuss all changes beforehand. Only careful
attitude to each other can save this relationship.
I.D. Vaisband, publications on Socionics
Conflict partners constantly get on each other’s pet peeves. This is
actually good for self-discovery. Marry a dual  you will be happy,
marry a conflictor  you will become a philosopher. For the most part,
try to maintain psychological distance, remain polite, and make no
attempt to pour out your heart! Of course, there can be no talk of
harmony is close relations (e.g. family). In cases where partners can
communicate at a distance, for example, both are members of a club, they
can use the advice of one another and even to maintain long-term
“distant” friendship if they treat each other with respect. When dealing
at close range conflicts in these relations are inevitable.
O.B. Slinko, “The key to heart - Socionics”
These relations require maximum carefulness. Leading function of your
conflict partner coincides with your most painful function. He, thus,
produces a flood of information about those aspects that you don’t pay
attention to and don’t mention. Communication with a conflicting partner
places you under constant tension. There is a sense of impending
explosion beneath the surface. Opposite encoding of information leads to
a feeling that literally every word of one’s conflictor is annoying and
brings up internal protest. At times, relations seem to be improving,
but at the most inopportune moment conflictor suddenly tells something
hurtful to you. Conflict relations can transpire smoothly if both
partners are aware of their incompatibility and maintain sufficient
distance, carefully trying to maneuver around “sharp corners”.
R.K. Sedih, “Informational psychoanalysis”
Partners usually find each other quite interesting. Among socionists the
most wide-spread name for this type of relations is “conflict”. This is
justified only on low level of interaction when both partners are poorly
developed and un-dualized. In this case, partners not realizing it will
hit each other’s weakest spots. This is a very difficult situation if
both of them have to live together, sharing a room for example.
Situation improves if even one partner is dualized. In this case
partners can affect each other positively and even derive benefit from
these relations. This aspect of interaction is satisfactory only if
there is tolerance between partners. In socionics, there is a tradition
to consider this interaction as the most harsh and uncomfortable for the
individual. My own research has shown, however, that it is almost always
not the case. Over many years of studying socionics, I have not found
any cases of such classic conflict as described by A. Augustinavichiute.
Our observations and some recent theoretical developments suggest that
in general this type of relation falls into the same level of comfort as
semi-duality and activation relations.
Laima Stankevichyute “Intertype relations”
When communicating, people automatically get into debates and often hit
each other’s most painful areas i.e. offend each other’s vulnerable
function. Both are saying unacceptable things in eyes of one another and
both suffer through this. Logical types seem to ethical types too
egoistical. Ethical types seem to logical types too frivolous, shallow,
foolish, and even malicious. This is especially hard when people have to
work together, because their methods and rhythm of work are very
different. Introverts accuse extraverts that they do not keep to the
schedules thus wrecking chaos. Extraverts accuse introverts of doing
everything too slowly. When people know about types, they can divide
work accordingly and not try to interfere with each other. Extravert
should not try to push and activate the introvert; introvert should not
try to slow down the extravert.
A.V. Bukalov, G. Boiko, “Why Saddam Hussein made a mistake, or what is
Socionics”
Misunderstandings arise very easily in this type of relations. Due to
how their functions are positioned, conflict partners are prone to
thinking that the other is being difficult intentionally. At the same
time, conflict relations are deceptive. At a distance partners attract
each other with their unusual abilities, sometimes with beauty,
originality of statements and behavior. Later, this is replaced by
mutual bafflement, concealed resistance, and eventually open conflict.
Moreover, as observations show, any reasoning or explanations don’t
improve these relations. The only way to improve them is to increase the
psychological distance between partners. Communication is done best in
presence of dual or activator of one of the partners. In family
situation, these relations can lead to psychosomatic illnesses. After
distancing from conflictor, the person feels considerably relieved.
Under the pressure of external circumstances conflictors can forget
about their differences for a while and work together in “same harness”.
These relations are dangerous by the fact that the conflict is often
subdued, quiet. Introverted types won’t show their feelings towards
their conflicting partners, until they reach a breaking point in some
situation.
Victor Gulenko, “Criteria of reciprocity”
Disorienting hospitality
Conflict partner immediately draws your attention via some unusual
effect he has on you. If your areas of activity are separate, then
communication is overall polite and amiable. Especially of interest are
the methods which conflict partner uses to solve his problems. When
trying to work more closely, his behavior starts to seem confusing. As a
result of this, irritation builds up, which can lead to conflict if
partners don’t distance in time.
Binary signs of intertype relations
Disagreements a fueled even further with intervention of third parties.
The root causes of conflict  complete opposition of the basic
properties of the personality  are not removed when partners
communicate one-on-one (this is impossible in principle), but can be
curbed, disregarded for a time being, interiorized. Conflict relations
grow more accommodating with maximum isolation from external influences.
Conflict partners can keep together only if they adhere to a system of
discussing their tastes, habits, and intentions beforehand. In conflict
relations, to avoid escalation into open conflict, partners need to have
an outlet to discharge their internal emotional tensions. Conflict
partners do not tolerate uncertainty and subtle hints. These
relationships stabilize when they are founded on a solid, invariable
rhythm of life.
Conflict partners usually are willing to demonstrate reasonableness and
manage to stay together in spite of an apparent dissimilarity of
character, but this is only possible with continuous suppression of
internal negative emotions. Advice of conflicting partner seems
deliberately misleading and illogical. There is a need to constantly
restrain oneself to not retaliate and try to discredit him.
Conflicting relations inhibit any bold, original initiatives and quickly
extinguish any “flights of imagination”. They orient people at
conservative, routine values. Partners beneficially work together only
on already established and previously successful projects. These
relations require a stable, strictly static environment. Conflict
partners have a tendency to conserve exiting balance and very much
disapprove of unexpected turns of events. Switching to new mode of
existence is extremely difficult; it is seen almost as a natural
disaster. Thus partners resist change at all costs, clinging to the old
ways. Only after being sure that all connections have been broken do
they look to a new course.
Associations are usually only short-term, during which the partners can
significantly move forward. In other cases differences are reinforced.
Internal tensions immediately makes itself felt when conflictors get
closer, into which they are sometimes pressured by external
circumstances. At best, the tension is relieved by mutual jokes and
banter, at worst  a quarrel and forceful collision.
Advice on getting along
These relations cause the ever-present inner tensions. People brought
together by these relations over time become anxious and irritable. In
collaboration with your conflict partner, strictly divide duties among
yourselves and carry them out according to a firm schedule/plan.
Rationalization will help you keep internal nervousness and negative
emotions at bay and channel accumulated energy into useful things of
homemaking or leisurely nature.
It is recommended to use humor and jokes to uplift each other’s moods.
However, joke carefully and avoid sarcasm. Once you feel that the
tension has reached a critical point, it is best that you leave the
vicinity of your conflict partner (for example, go to a different room).
Do not allow any mediators into your relations. Household duties do
together, but don’t take up the same duty together. Avoid surprises,
fancies, novelties, as your partner is likely to react negatively to
them.
Keep fidelity out of a sense of duty, consciously suppress resentment
and antipathy. Make it a tradition to celebrate the most pleasant
moments of your relationship. Help each other in the most difficult
moments. This way you will see responsiveness and effectiveness of these
relations in the pursuit of mutual interests against outside pressure
and adversity.
V.V. Gulenko, A.V. Molodtsev, “Introduction to socionics”
These are relations of brewing conflict beneath the surface. The degree
of psychological compatibility in this relationship is minimal. However,
this is not immediately obvious. Conflict partner often seems
attractive. He evokes a feeling of awe by showing his high level of
development of characteristics and style of thinking in which you
yourself are weak. Contact and convergence at first seem possible, but
on the way there things seem to persistently go wrong. Pondering why
these attempts to find common language do not work out, one comes to
conclusion that the cause of misunderstanding is not that significant
and easily removable. It is only necessary to invest some more effort
and your partner will understand you. There is persistent unwitting
desire to somehow positively predispose this person to yourself.
However, these attempts are like walking on the edge of a chasm  there
is always a danger of falling into it and getting drawn into fruitless,
exhausting fights. In these quarrels, partners inevitably verbally hit
each other’s most vulnerable places. There is a desire to prove
something to your conflictor, to clarify, to fully explain yourself, and
he on purpose refuses to understand you. This eventually causes a lot of
inner anger and neurotic feelings. Perhaps the worst part of these
relations is that with conflict partners there is often no mutual
helping each other  conflict partners fail to defend one another
against external attacks and threats. This doesn’t imply verbal defense,
but fulfilling complementary tasks for your partner which he clearly
cannot do due his weaknesses. Due to this, these relations often lack a
sense of security. This is particularly acute in a perceived hostile
environment. Parting with conflict partner, after prolonged attempts to
find common ground, the person often feels relieved.
Ekaterina Filatova “Art of understanding yourself and others”
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).
Eugene Gorenko, Vladimir Tolstikov, “Nature of self”
The peculiarity of this relationship is that each of the partners
unwittingly hurts the weakest and most vulnerable spot in psyche of
another. This, of course, is very unpleasant to both. However, it is
quite possible to maintain this relationship on a conflict-free level if
you observe a certain distance. It will relieve partners of the
collision and, therefore, help maintain completely normal relations.
Sergei Ganin
Heteroverted - Symmetrical - Arrhythmical
These are relations of constantly developing conflict. Conflicting
relations have the worst compatibility between partners among all other
relations. However, it does not seem to be so obvious, especially in the
earlier stages of development. Conflicting partners appear rather
attractive, interesting and with impressive abilities.
Both partners are usually convinced that they can coexist and
collaborate quite peacefully, but soon it becomes apparent that
something is always going wrong, making their relationship problematic.
Both partners may mistakenly think that the cause of these problems is
minor and easily fixed and that all they need to do is to show a little
bit more effort in understanding their partner.
Unfortunately, these attempts to continue pushing their relationship any
further will soon provoke an open conflict between the partners. When
conflict starts, partners hit each other with arguments exactly in the
direction where they can cause maximum pain. In return, the other
partner may counterattack even more aggressively. With every conflict
these relations become worse and worse.
Although Conflicting partners show confidence where their partner is not
confident, they are unable to protect and take care of each other’s weak
points. This regularly brings disagreement and disappointment into these
relations. When after several fruitless attempts to establish a stable
relationship the partners give up and break the relationship, they feel
saved and released.
Theory and description
¶
In relations of conflict, partners’
Ego
functions
correspond to the
Super-ego
functions of the other. This is similar to
Super-ego relations
except that partners’
1st
and
2nd
functions
correspond to the other’s
4th
and
3rd
, respectively (as opposed to 3rd and 4th). This
means that each person conveys a large amount of verbal information to
the weak vulnerable function of the other. This function is not able to
digest such a large body of information in stride, and the person’s
thinking processes becomes disorganized and muddled. The difference in
rationality
also makes this relationship develop much
more haphazardly and awkwardly than Super-ego relations.
In relations of conflict, two people belong to opposite poles of all
four
basic dichotomies
(e.g.
SLI
,
which is
irrational
,
introverted
,
sensing
, and
logical
, and
EIE
,
which is
rational
,
extroverted
,
intuitive
, and
ethical
).
At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they
become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their
motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their
relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in
a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this
relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable,
uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness
and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of
intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat
themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood;
thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first
place.
Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without
having the slightest understanding of each other’s motives. This makes
true collaboration and intimacy difficult.
It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal
situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and
openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they
usually end up trying to engage one another’s vulnerable function, but
this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the
suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and
support.
Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same
interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a
means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic
factors.
Conflict pairs
¶
ILE
and
ESI
SEI
and
LIE
ESE
and
ILI
LII
and
SEE
EIE
and
SLI
LSI
and
IEE
SLE
and
EII
IEI
and
LSE
Using the
four-letter code
: Conflict pairs differ
in all
Jungian dichotomies
.
Theoretical properties of conflict relations
¶
Model A
¶
Functions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 reflect on functions 4, 3, 2, 1, 8, 7,
6, 5.
Functions of
Model A
¶
Partner 1
Partner 2
base function
vulnerable function
creative function
role function
suggestive function
demonstrative function
mobilizing function
ignoring function
Reinin traits
¶
As with all non-identical types, conflict types have exactly 7
Reinin traits
in common, with the remaining 8 not in common.
In Common
:
carefree and farsighted
·
yielding and obstinate
·
static and dynamic
·
democratic and aristocratic
·
tactical and strategic
·
constructivist and emotivist
·
asking and declaring
Not in Common
:
extraversion and introversion
·
sensing and intuition
·
ethics and logic
·
rationality and irrationality
·
positivist and negativist
·
judicious and decisive
·
merry and serious
·
process and result
External links
¶
Conflicting relations
by
Sergei Ganin