Author: Aushra Augusta
From Theory of Intertype Relations
Disclaimer: the translation of the descriptions on this page is rather old, so its quality may not be on par with other translations on the website.
Duality
Activation
This, too, is a relationship of two extrathymes or introthymes in which one has inductive thinking, and the other deductive. One is always surprised and raptured by the other’s scope and resourcefulness in the sphere of new ideas, and the other – by the former’s ability to make decisions and act. This is the relationship of support, protection and activation, most optimal for any common cause. Moreover, extrathymes tend to feel the inclination to encourage each other’s activity, while introthymes demonstrate the feeling of responsibility for their partner’s safety.
At the end of the day, both extrathymes and introthymes get more animated, and straighten up. This is the relationship that facilitates the individual asserting themselves in society. Support of the personality without changing it. However, there’s no fusion in this relationship, unlike, for example, in duality. There can be covert transactions, which, however, don’t tend to cross.
Activation has one advantage over duality. Being with the dual always feels good, but the dual isn’t always a source of support. The dual only supports “their own,” the ones they feel responsible for, the ones they cooperate with, with their actions. But, as a relationship between two extrathymes of introthymes, activation is more amiable.
Mirror
Due to the sameness of the two most developed functions, these people’s intelligences are similar in many ways. However, one of them is an introthyme, and another – an extrathyme. Besides, their vulnerable functions are completely different. All of this leads to significant differences. The relationship is complicated by the fact that, unlike in the identity relationship, a pretty strong attraction is noticeable. The reason for this pull is the opposite direction of the impulse in the active ring of IM, which manifests externally as a persistent search for your perfected self in the other. Due to this there’s a mutual inclination to “fall in love” with identical and more perfect spiritual qualities of the partner.
These people’s attraction to each other is especially significant and fraught with complications when, due to lack of someone close with a complementary type of IM, the person lacks a sense of their own significance. When they don’t know and don’t feel their own self well, and have no one to lean on. When they are used to looking for support in themselves and their own kind, not the duals, and, due to not being ready for their start in life, are trying to figure out their social value on their own. The partner has a lot that’s similar, and, moreover, they have something the person lacks. For the extrathyme it’s the introthyme’s self-confidence (inner balance, equanimity, knowing how to defend their inner self). For the introthyme – the extarthyme’s bravery and fearlessness in the external world. Sometimes this leads to difficult love and hard, immature marriages, where both possess similar talents and a complete lack of complement. This leads to an unpleasant tendency to try and change, perfect one’s partner. The partners are either constantly jealous (sensoric types), or feel a lack of attention at least in the form of jealousy (intuitive types). They are too similar: breaking up and coexisting are both hard.
Interestingly, their relationship doesn’t lead to crossed transactions. At least we didn’t observe such phenomena even in cases where people took effort to bully each other. Apparently, the reason is that the partners don’t have a capacity to hurt the communicant’s weak functions. The so called hidden meaning of the message doesn’t register, “bounces off” of them.
Example from family life: “Anya!” – the intuitive ethical extrathyme (
) yells from the kitchen, – “The kettle is boiling!”. Anya, ethical intuitive introthyme (), figures that her husband notifies her of this important event instead of turning the stove off himself, stops what she was doing, comes to the kitchen with a pained facial expression and turns off the stove in silence.
A dual sensory logical introthyme (
) wife, someone who exists precisely to tell her spouse which actions are rational in a given situation, would react completely differently. She would just calmly respond with “Turn it off”, and both would be satisfied – the wife with the fact that her husband can’t do without her, and the husband would see once again that he can always rely on his wife (since the IEE never takes responsibility for objective processes, and passes the responsibility for both individual actions and methods of action to other people).
Identity
Kindred
This relationship can vary a lot emotionally. If people respect and accept each other, they can have exceptionally good rapport. They have so much in common, yet are so different, that they can become great continuators of work started by the other. For example, Darwin and Huxley, Niels Bohr and his brother. But if there’s no such respect, the relationship can become unpleasant and caustic, people get drowned in empty arguments and mockery of each other, become quarrelsome, their relationship is full of crossed transactions.
Semi-duality & Mirage
This relationship is peaceful, but somewhat deceiving. Semi-duals quite easily establish rapport, they take a liking to each other, but when they get closer or work on a mutual cause, it turns out that it’s somewhat hard for them to cooperate, that they don’t encourage each other’s activity, don’t facilitate it. Everything is seemingly right, but at the same time something always feels off, something is missing. This relationship is very similar to the well known rule in physics that the ignition temperature is higher than the combustion temperature. Partners perceive this fact as a result of the selfish behavior of the other individual, the kind of behavior that’s making it hard to cooperate productively.
In this case the relationship is limited to the complementary transactions – the equal (e.g. “Adult-to-Adult”) interaction. The “Child-to-Parent” interaction doesn’t work out, trying to make this kind of interaction happen usually turns into a joke.
The relationship we call mirage only slightly differs from semi-duality in essence. However, the mirage relationship is easier. In case of mirage, the partner can seem superficial, airheaded, but not selfish.
Quasi-identity
This is the relationship between two extrathymes or two introthymes, one of whom is rational and the other irrational, one is inductive and the other deductive. These are the people for whom the most developed intellectual functions are of the same type, but have the opposite signs. If one is using developed extraverted logic, then the other has it introverted. Thanks to this, there’s a certain parallelism in their intelligences, which is expressed as an overlapping of their interests. They are often united by the interest in the same topic – for example, passion for sciences or art, their businesslike qualities, or people’s relationship issues. But the ways they approach the same task are always vastly different. One can be raptured by the rationality and uniqueness of the other, but can’t understand how the other person does what they do, and often – why they do it, too. The way these people perceive the world is so different that even when they retell the same book it gives the impression they are talking about different ones. They can use each other’s advice, but can’t learn from one another. What’s understandable to one is completely alien to the other. At the same time these people are barely able to hurt one another or get into a fight. They are too different. The reason for this is the small intersection between their vulnerable and suggestive functions, which always means peaceful coexistence.
As demonstrated by further research, this assessment of the quasi-identity relations is only accurate when the distance between the partners isn’t close. When transitioning to the relations within the small group that’s isolated for a long time, quasi-identity relations significantly escalate and become very tiring for both partners.
Superego
People who exchange information in such a way understand their partner’s motivation pretty well, but use different means to achieve something in their own lives, or have vastly different goals. So different, that they never compete with each other. They live a life that’s pretty different from their partner’s, and, due to different life experience, they can provide help via advice and support. It’s a conflict-free, often pleasant, but pretty surface-level relationship, but you can always rely on your partner. According to our observations, it doesn’t lead to crossed transactions.
We call this relationship superego, since that which is the strongest side of personality (ego) for one, is the source of doubts and pangs of conscience for the other. Sadly, you can only see this clearly in model A, and that’s something we’ll have to come back to. Therefore for now, mere examples will have to do.
Example: sensoric ethical extrathyme (
) is in superego relationship with intuitive logical extrathyme (
). The former takes pride in their influence on people, the people’s love and respect, popularity, gladly leads people, brave and decisive in eroticism, but extremely cautious in relationship with the objective world, distrustful of new scientific ideas and, in general, of everything objective. Their conscience is only clear when they are manipulating people and not the objective world.
Intuitive logical extrathyme, on the other hand, explores all kinds of objective truths without hesitation, explores all kinds of sciences if only they found these sciences interesting for whatever reason, completely ignoring whether their education and degree are matching what they are interested in. Relationships with people are completely different. With people the ILE is cautious, tries to not impose their will on them, only doesn’t refuse leadership in situations where they can’t be accused of seeking power over people, when there’s no one else to lead, or in dangerous, critical situations. Only stays in power while there’s no doubt they are irreplaceable. When it comes to love, C. Jung already noted that this type doesn’t change their partner willingly.
Second example: logical intuitive extrathyme (
) and ethical sensoric extrathyme (
). The first gladly works on, for example, science, or any other objective task that provides something to their loved ones, or, better yet, the entire humanity. They are afraid of accusations they didn’t commit themselves to their task fully, that they are using comfort, that they are looking for sensory pleasures. Even love is dangerous as one of the forms of comfort. Ethical sensoric extrathyme () is the opposite. Love and all kinds of sensory pleasures are art. They are an eager fan of all kinds of art as a source of conscious joy. For example, if they need to choose between love and a dissertation, they will always choose the former, because the latter might be them not being honest enough with people. Love is their responsibility and mission, not sin, while science is a selfish pleasure. Not all people of this type have loved a lot. But that’s not what’s important. What’s important is how they treated their, and others’, feelings.
Conflict
This is a relationship of pretty strong attraction and dangerous conflicts. When such people are at a “safe distance,” they attract each other, enrapture each other with some kind of abilities, including their poise and posture. But during direct communication, because the most developed, leading function of one constantly and completely involuntarily pushes on the other’s point of least resistance, i.e. the vulnerable function, they completely unintentionally and unexpectedly for themselves hurt one another. And most often this happens during the moment of most serious bonding and trust, when it’s least expected, when they switch from the formal, or at least a little cold internally, tone to the spontaneous sincerity, allow themselves to relax a little, show a sense of humor.
Why does this happen? Apparently, it’s because information that, for one, is connected to their leading function and comes so easily they may even joke about it, for the other is connected to their most tense, vulnerable, function, and that’s not a laughing matter anymore. Words aren’t the only thing that can offend. The person can feel offended, hurt, or humiliated by a smile, a look, a motion, a request for a small favor, or, in turn, an offering of a favor, just as well. Everything that for the dual would be a gesture of caring and friendliness, for the conflictor seems like deliberate humiliation, a sign and proof of lack of respect, dislike towards themselves or their feelings and actions. Offended and hurt sensoric type (tactician) tries to react, i.e. defend themselves, on the spot. The intuitive types (strategists) accumulate their grievances and set them aside for the future. In both cases both conflictors are sure of their interlocutor’s ill will, quarrelsome personality, malice, ability to come up with mockery. In essence, this is a crossed transaction, during which both communicators get hurt.
A relationship between such individuals can only be passable on the condition of emotional reservedness, maintaining formality and a sort of demonstrative, dry amiability, i.e. when a mask of politeness comes to the rescue to maintain the “safe distance.” It’s really similar to the traffic rules. The bigger the distance is, the more freely, friendly, cordially you can behave with one another. But the moment it closes in, you have to slow down, apply the brake. This relationship is dangerous in a family. The spouses can learn how to behave with each other to avoid the counter strikes, but at the same time they constantly repress their emotions, which is fraught with mental and somatic disturbances.
It doesn’t always seem like “the other one” is hurtful intentionally. It’s possible to think that the partner is selfish, that they are callous, not developed enough intellectually or emotionally, that they don’t care about other people’s feelings at all.
Example. “Oh, what a beautiful suit you have!” – says the ethical sensoric introthyme () to to the intuitive logical extrathyme (). – ”Who did you wear it for, Elsa or Iolanta?” The ESI’s dual, logical intuitive extrathyme () who always looks messy, would perceive this joke as meaning that he looks good enough, that there’s enough respect towards other people, including women, in his appearance. He wouldn’t notice any double-meaning.
With the intuitive logical extrathyme () it’s completely different. Usually the ILE looks pretty messy too, but he’s constantly insecure about it, he doesn’t like it, and is never sure that he looks good enough and doesn’t shock people. Such feelings are only soothed by the reassurances of the dual sensoric ethical introthyme (). If there’s no dual, the ILE tries to make sure his clothes are “from a good tailor,” which would exclude any doubts about it. Because of this, the first part of the aforementioned joke he would perceive as the reassurance he needs. However, the second part hurts, since the ILE’s superego has a lot of caution regarding manipulations of any animate objects. Dressing for someone is already a part of such manipulation. He tries to dress “appropriately” only to not be noticed and to not stand out from other people in his group, not to attract anyone’s attention. Such implication becomes a strike to the point of least resistance – the mysterious vulnerable function.
Along the way we’ll note that, when the ethical sensoric introthyme () gets offended, they accuse the offender of the desire to subjugate other people, and note that in this case the offender “messed with the wrong person.” This makes perfect sense if we remember the meaning of the ESI’s leading block. The ESI’s intelligence (ego) is adjusted to the specific type of power over other people, and they don’t want, and cannot, submit to others. They only submit to the logic of the happenings in the real world, and the one who points such logic out for them.
Extinguishment
Business
Partners understand each other pretty well, they respect each other and can cooperate successfully, even though they set different goals and reach those goals through different means. Because of the shared creative function they are more alike than superego partners. But, perhaps, for this reason they rely on each other too much and expect perfect understanding, which can eventually lead to disappointment.
Classic Socionics 