This is a discussion on MBTI Type Compatibility Chart similar to Socionics Intertype Relations within the Socionics Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; ...
@cyamitide - Is there any information on what the justification is for the listings?
Otherwise I think finally admitting the JP switch is valid is a huge step forward. And Duals and Semi-duals are considered to be ideal matches? :S
I'd be interested to know where this came from and, as @MNiS noted, what the justification for it all is.
I think I agree in concept, but I'd like to know where the ideas are coming from. Is it actually taken from Socionics, or is it constructed independently from the same thought process, or what? If it were somehow supported by data, that would be interesting.
I thought MBTI partnership ideals are about keeping the same middle two letters, then switching the outer 2 letters.
Zoom out, switch 3 letters and keep the same Dom function letter.Our understanding of psychological type helps to see that these types typically have the same dominant function, but with a different attitude.
In Jungian terms, "functions" refer to the four core traits: Intuition (N), Sensing (S), Feeling (F), and Thinking (T). The term "attitude" refers to the direction of the function, i.e. Introverted (I) or Extraverted (E).
So, for example, a person with a personality type of ISFP has a dominant function of Introverted Feeling. More specifically, Feeling in the dominant function, and its attitude (or direction) is Introverted. A person with this personality type is likely to be most attracted to, and fit best with, a person that has Extraverted Feeling dominating their personality. Extraverted Feeling dominates the personality types ESFJ and ENFJ. We therefore determine that the ISFP's natural partner is the ESFJ or the ENFJ.
Our natural attraction to people who share our dominant function, but who use it in a different direction works very well for us. We not only flip-flop the Introverted or Extraverted trait, but we also flip-flop the Judging or Perceiving trait. In this way, the partner that we choose for ourselves will have a very different approach to dealing with the world. If we are laid-back and indecisive, our partner will be structured and decisive. If we are reserved, our partner will be outgoing. For all of our apparent differences, we will share a common vision of what's truly important in life.
For people whose personality types are dominated by Decision Making functions, (i.e. Thinking or Feeling), their ideal partners will include both Sensing and Intuitive types. Many people have problems communicating effectively with people who do not share their same preference for Information Gathering. So, if you have a very strong preference for Sensing or Intuition, you will need to give the personality type with the same preference a higher value as a likely natural partner. For example, an ISFP who strongly prefers Sensing will work best with an ESFJ, rather than an ENFJ.
I think Semiduality is pretty close to perfect. Both parties get their fill of DS and overall world views mix well. There are more communication problems than Duality, but nothing that can't be fixed.
Last edited by MNiS; 09-16-2014 at 07:33 PM. Reason: corrected a mistake
some of the types match line up's are in different orders, one type having say 5th place suitability yet the matching type placing that same type in a different order in the second diagram.
It is interesting that they chose not to follow an algorithm, and instead come up with an individual order for each type. My opinion for an order is basically:
2.) Semidual or Mirage same subtype, depending on your preferences and rationality
3.) Activity same subtype
4.) Everything else
Being the Supervisee should in almost all cases be near to the worst, if not right next to Conflictor. Benefit is a complex relationship, and deserves more discussion on-forum before it can be considered as highly as it seems to be here. Mirage should be more favorable for irrational types than Benefit, Kindred, or Extinguishment. Superego relations are, in my experience, more emotionally complicated than simply being "second worse" in all cases. Despite being awesome for friendship, Kindred can be nasty in a romantic relationship, which is interestingly a mixed bag on this chart.
This is an interesting list though. I can guarantee you most INTJ on PerC would have a hard time putting ESTP as their "second most compatible" and other INTJ so low, although I agree with both.
It was posted in the INFJ MBTI Facebook group with that caption saying that this chart came from an "INTP wall" and it was reposted into the group. There wasn't any justifications or reasoning provided beyond that.
Looking at these charts I would have switched some of these pairings, for example the third column on second drawing has all the semi-duals paired up, which work out better for rationals, but for irrationals it's actually the mirage relation that takes over. So for ENTP for example I'd place INFJ into third column of second drawing instead of the ISTJ, switching semi-duals with mirages around.
2. isfp, intj
3. esfj, entj, estp
4. isfj, intp, istp, infj
5. ---- entp, estj, enfj
6. ----------- istj, infp
7. ---------------- enfp
How to Find Yourself and Your Best Match. Socionics. The Modern Approach to Psychological Types
Complementary (C). All Intellectual Intuitive types are Complementary to the Emotional Sensory group and vice versa. All Intellectual Sensory types are Comlementary to the Emotional Intuitive group. Relationships between these groups are best for marriage and romance. The subconscious of Intellectual Intuitive types is Emotional and Sensing. Partners in these relationships "cover each other's back". Together they cover all aspects of Informational Metabolism. They have the same type of emotionality, same type of sexuality, same type of thinking and understanding. Partners make each other comfortable and relaxed. These relationships do not contribute to personal growth. Although C1 is the best type of relationship, it's not that easy to establish. In the beginning, partners don't seem to see each other or attract to each other. It almost takes knowledge of Socionics to even enter in such relationship. Only as the time goes along, when partners engage in common activity and spend some time with each other, they start seeing each other's qualities and get attracted to each other. Once you've been in C1, you'll never want anything else. The types of relationships where partners easily get attracted to each other are C2 and C3. These are the most common of all happy marriages. Keep in mind that even complementary types may have problems with each other because of issues outside of Socionics.
Identical (I). All types are Identical to the types of their own group. Relationships within the same group are best for personal growth. Best setup for these relationships is parent-child, teacher-student. Once there is a gap in knowledge and experience, these relationships are best for passing experience from one partner to another. Partners may not be helpful in convering the weak sides of each other. Once the experience has leveled, partners may have nothing to talk about. They may even start competing in areas where other types wouldn't.
Quasi-Identical (QI). All Intellectual Intuitive types are Quasi-Identical to the Intellectual Sensory group and vice versa. All Emotional Sensory types are Quasi-Identical to the Emotional Intuitive group and vice versa. Quasi-Identical types respect each other and listen to each other. Their views are interesting to each other, but are very different. They can't help each other achieve their goals because these goals are too different, and the ways of achieving them are completely different too. These relationships are best suitable for self learning from watching each other. Sometimes we need to use some behavioral patterns of our Quasi-Identical partners. Something that they do better than us. Partners have different sexuality and emotionality. These relationships are acceptable for friendship or business. As romantic relationships, they rarely survive long. If they do, they normally transform into friendship-type relationships.
Quasi-Complementary (QC). All Intellctual Intuitive types are Quasi-Complementary to the Emotional Intuitive group and vice versa. All Intellectual Sensory types are Quasi-Complementary to the Emotional Sensory group. Quasi-Complementary partners live in two different dimensions. When they communicate, both partners develop an illusion that they understand each other, have similar values and interests. This illusion may last very long and even lead to marriage, but sooner or later partners will discover that each lives with an imaginary person. Their eyes will be suddenly opened to the truth, and this moment is always unpleasant. At that point, they will have to either part friends, or face the truth as it is and just live together each in a world parallel to the other's. The entire insidiousness of these relationships is in fact that they are illusionary. Partners may find out the truth about each other when it is too late to break up.
Seven compatibility levels of relationships
Your partners within your Complementary cluster are not all equal, just as your partners in any other cluster. Each type of relationships belongs to a certain Compatibility Level. Compatibility Level tells us how compatible the partners in a certain type of relationship are from the standpoint of Socionics. Please, keep in mind that compatibility is a complex issue. Socionics is just a significant part of it, but not everything. To complete the entire compatibility picture you need to look at common values, educational level, other issues. Nothing will help, though, if you engage into an inappropriate Socioncis Relationship. Level 1 is best for marriage and common activity. If you want to be 100% happy with your partner and never dream of anything else, find your C1 partner. The desirability of relationships diminishes from Level 1 to Level 7.
R.K. Sedih, "Informational psychoanalysis" (Conflict Relations):
"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."
Last edited by Tellus; 11-27-2014 at 09:17 AM.