[MrShatter]

Besides Myers Briggs compatibility models, there are also several theories on the incompatibility of the types that emerged at the same time and have been long studied by psychologists and couple therapists in order to decide their viability. I will present three of them which appear to be the most popular. How reliable they actually are, is something you’ll have to decide for yourself.

Interaction Styles Incompatibility

This theory is based on the Interaction Styles model, which proposes four main categories in which the 16 types are grouped. It is based on four preferred ways of social interacting and it’s usually very helpful in explaining and improving team work dynamics. For more clarity I will summarize each of these categories and tell you where each type fits:

Chart-the-Course: INFJ, ISTJ, INTJ, ISTP
These types are usually talented at planning and determining a feasible couse of action for attaining a certain goal. They’re usually analytical and conceptualizing and shine at forseeing possible obstacles and outlining a good strategy in a variety of situations.

Get-thing-Going: ENFP, ESFJ, ENTP, ESFP
These types are natural motivators, great at energizing and involving people in a project. They’re upbeat, enthusiastic and open to new ideas and possibilities. Can be charismatic leaders with very expressive personalities and a desire to engage others in everything they do.

In-Charge: ENFJ, ENTJ, ESTJ, ESTP
Goal-oriented, direct and efficient, these types are natural leaders who focus mainly on results and effectiveness. They are energetic action people, fast decision-makers and very aware of whatever needs to be corrected and improved. They shine at mobilizing resources, mentoring people and monitoring a project.

Behind-the-Scenes: INFP, INTP, ISFJ, ISFP
These types are usually talented at defining, claryfing and improving different aspects of a project. They are patient, reserved and prefer to work in the backgound, where they gather information, mine for new data and consult different sources in order to better understand the process. They do well in research and counseling.

The Interaction Styles incompatibility theory suggests that the following styles are very likely to experience great stress when interacting:

Chart-the-Course least compatible with Get-thing-Going
/ in other words: INFJ, ISTJ, INTJ, ISTP least compatible with ENFP, ESFJ, ENTP, ESFP

In-Charge least compatible with Behind-the-Scenes
/ in other words: ENFJ, ENTJ, ESTJ, ESTP least compatible with INFP, INTP, ISFJ, ISFP


McAlpine's “Opposing Personality”

This model is based on Beebe’s 8 functions theory and it states that incompatibility happens between the types with the same functions but opposite attitudes.

It has been verified by psychologist Ken Liberty through a live research that included several married couples, which revealed that the types with inverted attitudes (listed below) were having the most trouble getting along in the relationship. Liberty described them as “fighting every other minute”.

ESTJ least compatible with: ISTP

ESTP least compatible with: ISTJ

ESFJ least compatible with: ISFP

ESFP least compatible with: ISFJ

ENTJ least compatible with: INTP

ENTP least compatible with: INTJ

ENFJ least compatible with: INFP

ENFP least compatible with: INFJ

ISTJ least compatible with: ESTP

ISTP least compatible with: ESTJ

ISFJ least compatible with: ESFP

ISFP least compatible with: ESFJ

INTJ least compatible with: ENTP

INTP least compatible with: ENTJ

INFJ least compatible with: ENFP

INFP least compatible with: ENFJ


McAlpine's “Dynamic Opposites”

This is the second incompatibility theory proposed by McAlpine and is based this time on opposing functions. The preferred cognitive process of one type is the least-conscious process of the other, thus creating the opportunity for a lot of tension and misunderstanding. Here are this model’s incompatible types:

ESTJ least compatible with: ENFJ

ESTP least compatible with: ENFP

ESFJ least compatible with: ENTJ

ESFP least compatible with: ENTP

ENTJ least compatible with: ESFJ

ENTP least compatible with: ESFP

ENFJ least compatible with: ESTJ

ENFP least compatible with: ESTP

ISTJ least compatible with: INFJ

ISTP least compatible with: INFP

ISFJ least compatible with: INTJ

ISFP least compatible with: INTP

INTJ least compatible with: ISFJ

INTP least compatible with: ISFP

INFJ least compatible with: ISTJ

INFP least compatible with: ISTP

Taken from:
Personality Types: Incompatibility of Myers Briggs Types - Enneagram and Myers Briggs

Thought it was interesting, especially because on the first list, the opposite is thought to be true.

 

[Staffan]

That McAlpine guy seems to have a hard time making his mind up. I would guess the interaction style theory is the most valid since there is a lot of research pointing to similar personalities being more compatible. I don't think that many INFP/ESTP couples last very long. Although attitude is probably not that big a deal. I have a hunch it could even be a good thing having different attitudes.

 

[Sunbeam]

McAlpine's straight up wrong. I fucking love INFJ's and could easily get into a relationship with one.

 

[Lightlilly]

I would like to agree with this, my older sister is an ENFP and she is my complete opposite. I can not hardly carry a conversation with her. It's not that I don't love her because I do she's my sister lived with her for 17yrs, it's that our interests have nothing to do with each other. That and she doesn't know how to effectively communicate she acts like shes not all there most of the time and she gets upset with every little thing I say to her >.>.... although some of that can be contributed to the fact that she is my sisters....all sisters argue sometime

I always secretly thought and knew that
INFJ least compatible with: ENFP

She would always want me to do things with her, I just never enjoyed spending time with her as much as she apparently enjoyed spending time with me. I think ENFPs can get along with INFJs....but INFJs feel misunderstood by ENFPs.

 

[Jewl]

I'm going to completely disagree. XD INTJs and INFJs are the types that I actually feel most attracted to and intrigued by. And I also seem to get along with them very well. ^^

 

[Sunbeam]

I would like to agree with this, my older sister is an ENFP and she is my complete opposite. I can not hardly carry a conversation with her. It's not that I don't love her because I do she's my sister lived with her for 17yrs, it's that our interests have nothing to do with each other. That and she doesn't know how to effectively communicate she acts like shes not all there most of the time and she gets upset with every little thing I say to her >.>.... although some of that can be contributed to the fact that she is my sisters....all sisters argue sometime

I always secretly thought and knew that
INFJ least compatible with: ENFP

She would always want me to do things with her, I just never enjoyed spending time with her as much as she apparently enjoyed spending time with me. I think ENFPs can get along with INFJs....but INFJs feel misunderstood by ENFPs.

My INFJ friends love me

 

[Donovan]

so they're saying that they had certain groups that overall showed either a positive or negative relationship?

i can see how that would play out, but... if you wanted to flip it. and say that those with the same functions and attitudes (reverse of what was mentioned: same functions different attitudes) would be more compatible since the opposite was not: usually not thought to be the case.

you can set up your studies in multiple different ways and possibly prove whatever you wanted to. or, you may see the same correlation every time--i'd say if that's the case, why not put in an overwhelming amount of numbers and see if the "gaps" average over time, to see if they widen or lessen, and then in comparison, look to see if it is really that much of a difference?

since you hear of all different types making it work, and then those same type-relationships going horribly wrong, and you hear things that either support or contradict what's thought to be "true", then i'd say what i mentioned in the paragraph above.

 

[Lightlilly]

My INFJ friends love me

I'm sure they do this is just my own experience/ examples
I do love my sister. She is just very different from me in her interests and the way she communicates.
I believe that INFJs love everyone. Even people that do them wrong.
at least I do

 

[Staffan]

you can set up your studies in multiple different ways and possibly prove whatever you wanted to.

Most studies on this are peer reviewed by people who know the simple tricks that could fool the general public. And most of these studies indicate that "birds of a feather flock together".

 

[cyamitide]

I found that the most accurate jungian type compatibility model is the Socionics one. This is because this model takes cognitive functions into account, while many of the MBTI compatibility studies simplistically use 4-letter codes. MBTI studies would group ENTJs, INTJs, INTPs, and ENTPs together simply because all these types are NTs, while disregarding the fact that xNTJs value Ni and Te while xNTPs value Ne and Ti and so these are completely different types. The basis of type lies in the cognitive functions, however, and this is something that commonly gets forgotten in MBTI compatibility research.

 

[Donovan]

Most studies on this are peer reviewed by people who know the simple tricks that could fool the general public. And most of these studies indicate that "birds of a feather flock together".

you'd have to know what they meant by "peer reviewed". did they have a friend say, "hey, that's great!" and just no one looked into it--did other professionals look into it who all the while agree with the same school of thought/it only strengthened their own publications, "so why not back it up?"--did they just say it was "p.r.-ed", and if it was, in what way was it "p.r.-ed"? did they take into account every other facet of this problem or just largely ignore a lot of evidence that would contradict them (flip-side of the coin mentioned earlier in this post).

all i'm saying is that things like this slowly become less and less meaningful the more you think about them. there are ways of categorizing that have to do with combining people of a similar dominant J-function regardless of the perception, and then those that say, no, you need the same perception (attitudes don't matter) but the J-functions have to be exact, just flipped, and then others that don't follow the logic of either of those.

when it comes down to it, it seems as if more problems can occur from putting faith into studies like this to begin with since it could cause you to be biased, or under the impression that something may be doomed from the get-go. when it comes down to it, problems come about regardless and are either resolved or they're not--regardless of the orientations of the couples' functions.

 

[LiquidLight]

Well I think there is a critical point that's missing and that is the difference between attraction and relationship. It is quite common for people who are very different from each other to be attracted to one another. Introvert with Extravert is very common (even Jung says this is by far the most common pairing). And also its common to see people whose Inferior Function is your Dominant Function (compensation).

It's actually easier to figure out why two people might be attracted (or repulsed) by one another, as it seems that McAlpine is trying to do, than it is to figure out whether or not the relationship has any long-term potential. Long-term potential deals with lots of things that may have little to do with type or personality, for example the Fe-type who can't bring herself to marry the man her peer group doesn't approve of. Yes Fe is a factor here but so are the conditions of her life. Her persona, her loyalty to her parents or peers, the relative value of her lover over the value of the disposition of others. Her fears and hopes and so forth. Its much bigger than type.

In fact often persona is really the driving force behind attraction anyway (which is probably why the Kiersey and Berens' profiles are a little more accurate in predicting this kind of stuff). Because according to Jung people are generally attracted to others for compensatory reasons (looking for something in someone else you yourself don't outwardly possess). But again finding it doesn't mean happily ever after. Quite the contrary in many cases.

Because the only real relationship statistics we have are marriage statistics, (because casual dating, sex partners, and the like aren't calculated) all we can really look at from a stats/type standpoint is what seems to work for the long term, which superficially might look like "birds of a feather," but beneath the surface there might be much more going on like cultural, ethnic, temperamental, economic similarity.

It sounds like many of these formulas deal more with what might attract two people, but not with what would keep them together.

 

[JungyesMBTIno]

I see way more credibility in the one with opposite shadow function types than the one with complementary shadow function types, very broadly speaking in terms of JCF logic. I've never clashed with ENTPs...in fact, I've seen theories elsewhere where it was proposed that the complementary shadow types tend to be among the best pairings, since they all have the same function order, just different function attitudes. On the other hand, I can definitely see where bigger issues can arise from polar opposite types pairing up (e.g. INTJs and ISFJs), although that's not to say that these can't work out either, since I've seen evidence that they can IRL, albeit rare. Frankly, I don't think type is all that important in issues like this - as @LiquidLight pointed out, it's the persona that plays a way bigger role for so many reasons.

 

[Staffan]

you'd have to know what they meant by "peer reviewed". did they have a friend say, "hey, that's great!" and just no one looked into it--did other professionals look into it who all the while agree with the same school of thought/it only strengthened their own publications, "so why not back it up?"--did they just say it was "p.r.-ed", and if it was, in what way was it "p.r.-ed"? did they take into account every other facet of this problem or just largely ignore a lot of evidence that would contradict them (flip-side of the coin mentioned earlier in this post).

all i'm saying is that things like this slowly become less and less meaningful the more you think about them. there are ways of categorizing that have to do with combining people of a similar dominant J-function regardless of the perception, and then those that say, no, you need the same perception (attitudes don't matter) but the J-functions have to be exact, just flipped, and then others that don't follow the logic of either of those.

when it comes down to it, it seems as if more problems can occur from putting faith into studies like this to begin with since it could cause you to be biased, or under the impression that something may be doomed from the get-go. when it comes down to it, problems come about regardless and are either resolved or they're not--regardless of the orientations of the couples' functions.

If you read the scientific journals other than Journal of Personality Type (which I haven't read so I cant tell if it is scientific or not) you will find that there are various theories and viewpoints being debated and that there simply is not the kind of consensus that would enable peer review to slide into friend review. They don't ignore other evidence, there is usually a discussion about all the previous research into a specific topic in the articles. Just see for yourself.

 

[JungyesMBTIno]

I really don't see how anyone can come to a consensus on a topic like this, since it's mainly just individuals that attract individuals for various reasons. There's no way this topic can be successfully boiled down to type and overlook so many other variables that might be driving the attraction, since there's no reason that type should be a predominate factor. I've never seen any established reason why, anyhow. With all of the people there are in the world, I just don't know how anything definitive can come from such studies.