Thoughts on Intertype Relationships

A

Arsal

Permanent Fixture
MBTI
-
Enneagram
-
I've been thinking about type compatibility and I'm curious to hear what others think. I believe there is some pattern among which types are most compatible, but I'm not sure how it maps out precisely.

I've created a clunky, semi-working model for this. Opinions of all sorts are welcome.

-----

The psyche is divided into two parts: consciousness and unconsciousness.

The conscious part consists of all the attributes and associations we consider as part of our Ego, and the unconscious part consists of everything we disassociate with, our complexes, Anima/Animus, as our Shadow. The former part is defined by our Dominant and Auxiliary functions, while the latter is defined by the Inferior (individually known as Tertiary and Inferior function).

Feeling and Thinking are opposite and antagonistic in nature, as Sensing and Intuition. Introverted and Extraverted attitudes describe the flow of energy/libido for the individual.

lextypes.gif

​

It is important to note that while the attitudes are dissimilar, the function remains the same. For instance, Introverted Feeling and Extraverted Feeling are, in fact, the same function, but with different orientations towards the same purpose. Fi is Feeling oriented towards the subject while Fe is Feeling oriented towards the object.

Thus, the INFJ type can be simplified to:

Conscious:
Intuition
Feeling

Unconscious:
Thinking
Sensing

Notice how the only other type who shares this basic orientation with INFJs is ENFP, which has an Extraverted attitude towards Intuition. However, it is the same language, spoken differently.

The Conscious functions are rewarding and energizing to use. They are differentiated and part of our identity. The Unconscious functions are only facets of the Conscious, and exist to contrast between the Ego and the Shadow. Making an effort to differentiate the Unconscious functions can be a draining and unrewarding activity, too much of which can lead to neurosis.

-----

Based on this, and the MBTI model, here's how I see intertype relations manifest themselves. Bear in mind the following is entirely heuristic.

I've thought up a Socionics-like model of functions based on the I/E attitudes.

Conscious

Active:
1.Introverted Intuition
2.Extraverted Feeling

 Passive:
3.Extraverted Intuition
4.Introverted Feeling

Unconscious

Passive:
5.Introverted Thinking
6.Extraverted Sensing

Active:
7.Extraverted Thinking
8.Introverted Sensing

[Active and Passive aren't Jungian terms, they're placeholders for concepts which, I'm sure, have much more specific terms. In this context, what I mean by Active and Passive is functions that we actively choose to associate or disassociate with within ourselves, and functions that we passively choose to associate or disassociate with in reaction to others.]

[INFJs find it stimulating to actively associate with Ni and Fe, and to actively disassociate with Si and Te. On the flip side, they find it stimulating to passively associate with Ne and Fi and passively disassociate with Ti and Se. This does not mean I am, in any way, endorsing the 8-function theory. I am, in fact, riffing on the 4-function idea with a few added variables. It's still not possible for INFJs to "use Fi". It's not a function that they can associate with actively.]

In theory, whichever types share the Conscious functions with us - which are parts of our Ego that we recognize and value - we are most compatible with. So an INFJ, would be most compatible with other INFJs and ENFPs, because they share the same Conscious and Unconscious functions.

On the flip side, the least compatible type (theoretically) would be ISTJ. They associate with parts of our the psyche that INFJs actively tend to suppress. The only times ISTJs are stimulating to INFJs is when they indulge in their Fi or Ne, which the ISTJ can find draining.

Despite this, there are different type matches for different occasions, even though some types are going to be far more rewarding to interact with than other types.

-----

In terms of energy relationships (Pod'lair term, sue me):

1.
------------------------------ENFP, INFJ (N-F-T-S) (Identity)


​
ENFJ, INFP (F-N-S-T) (Mirror) ------------------------------- INTJ, ENTP (N-T-F-S) (Companion)



2.
------------------------------INTP, ENTJ (T-N-S-F)


ISFP, ESFJ (F-S-N-T) --------------------------------------- ESFP, ISFJ (S-F-T-N)



3.

ISTJ, ESTP (S-T-F-N) -------------------------------------- ESTJ, ISTP (T-S-N-F)


[1] being the most compatible, followed by [2] and [3] being the least compatible.
N is always going to be the source of stimulation for INFJs as well as F, but not to the same degree.

-----

I'm sure this has flaws, and as I said, it's based on my subjective experiences, so there's not much credibility to it.

(See this link for definitions of Jungian terms: http://www.psychceu.com/Jung/sharplexicon.html)

Thoughts, comments, throw them at me.
 
This is a very interesting theory. I have thought about Intertype relationships quite a bit.

My dad is ISTJ and we barely get along, never being able to see eye-to-eye. The only times we truly get along are when he's using his Ne and Fi, and I can tell that it wears him out to use it, same goes for my Lab Instructor...Whenever I find a better way to do the experiment, he never wants to let me execute it because it's not HIS directions. I can get along with XSTPs, but can never truly go deep with them. They can be fun to hang out with for a short while.

My best friends are INFP, ENFJ, and ENTP. We click so well, and I have always wondered why. They always seem to bring out the best in me. Our friendship is effortless. I feel like there is more of a balance in the relationship, like each is receiving/putting in equal amounts of energy.

I get get along with ISFPs and ISFJs, but I have a hard time getting close to them. They are so artistic and talented, but when they start getting rigid with their feelings/morals/ideas, I tend to start to shut down.


Thank you for sharing this. I've had similar ideas about this, so it's nice to see someone else who can elaborate on it.

I will certainly be back with questions.
 
A more elaborate attempt at categorization:

INFJ (Ni Fe) | ENFP (Ne Fi) | ENTP (Ne Ti) | INTJ (Ni Te)
ENFJ (Fe Ni) | INFP (Fi Ne) | INTP (Ti Ne) | ENTJ (Te Ni)
ESFJ (Fe Si) | ISFP (Fi Se) | ISTP (Ti Se) | ESTJ (Te Si)
ISFJ (Si Fe) | ESFP (Se Fi) | ESTP (Se Ti) | ISTJ (Si Te)

Top left - most compatible
Bottom right - least compatible

Might edit this later and stuff.
 
Essentially: in this model, compatibility is determined by similarity in the ordering of N/S/T/F.

I think, rather than being a general compatibility model, what this is is "compatibility with reference to similarity in the placement of the four functions", and so is only looking at part of how relationships would play out by assuming that only similar functions are going to interact.

To make the model complete, we would need to make a full classification of the interactions between each function with each other (we can simplify this model by assuming that N and S, T and F, e and i are each equivalent with respect to everything except each other), and extend this to type relationships by treating a type essentially as the sum of its parts, function-wise (is this a valid treatment?).

Definitions:

  • Pv and Jv refer to any Perception and Judging functions, Lv refers to either Pv or Jv. N and S are indistinguishable, so too are F and T, and i and e.*
  • when considering pairings, ' means the complement of, in that v and v' refers to e and i (in any order), P and P' refers to N and S (in any order) and J and J' refers to T and F (in any order).
  • rel is a relationship function
This gives at least 6 function combinations:

  1. Lv with Lv
  2. Lv with Lv'
  3. Lv with L'v
  4. Lv with L'v'
  5. Pv with Jv
  6. Pv with Jv'
For 1. we have rel(Lv, Lv) = identity, for 2. we have rel(Lv, Lv') = complement; we know that a person's Main functions are Pv and Jv' and so we should get a good interaction with 6.; with 4. we have the opposites (e.g. Ni/Se and Fe/Ti), with 3. we have, e.g. Ni/Si, with 5 we have e.g. Ni/Ti.

Once we have treated each of these, we can put them together and do a treatment of compatibility between types.



* if we further distinguish between J and P using L and 'L, we can generalise a type configuration as Lv - 'Lv' : 'L'v - L'v'
or using A and B instead: Av - Bv' : B'v - A'v', or Aa - Bb : B'a - A'b
 
Last edited:
The interactions between functions that can co-exist in a single type would be
much the same as they would be in a single person (albeit more balanced), e.g.
Pi+Je or Pe+Ji work by covering opposing aspects, Pi and Ji through alternation,
Li and L'e can't work together per se, but go well together in that they can deal
with opposing types of data.*

* I forgot to add Lv+L'v! (which goes to show the importance of logic!) This pairing
results not in working together so much - rather it's the recognition that you each
relate to the world in similar ways.

With Li and Li, or Li and Le, there is a special kind of bonding; rather than needing
something external to focus on, and coming together in regards to that, the two
stimulate each other directly, either through identifying or complementing.

For Li and Li, there is a mutual understanding of the other; when the two come
together, they come together as a greater version of either of them.

 Li and Le perfectly complement each other. There is an ideal flow of energy
between them - through their union, they become complete.
 
Last edited:
We may divide the 6 functional pair relations into 3 groups:

Collaboration
- inferior \ /
- tertiary \/
- auxiliary Y

Compounding
- parallel ||
- identity |

Complement
- [complement] =

We compare two types by giving them a score for each of these three axes, such that the score is
higher for the stronger relationships, and as the functions are higher in each person's hierarchy.


Possible way of determining compatability of each type:*
- denote a value of 1,2,3,[4 or 6] for the inf, ter, aux, dom functions
- denote values of inferior=1; tertiary=2; auxiliary=3; parallel=2; identity=4; complement=6;
- define the compability score by adding up the product of the values of the functions and their relationship,
for each pair of functions of the two types (you can simialrly obtain a score for each of the three C's)
I might compute a table for this in a moment and post the results.

*note: this method will not be used, it is just an example
 
Last edited:
I like the basis of your idea quite a bit Arsal. It's very much like the intertype relations system that Socionics uses -- however we get to actually see the logic unfold before us which is very rewarding, I think -- as well it uses a JCF view of the functions (which is slightly different than the Socionics take)

I have a question about this phrase however:
INFJs find it stimulating to actively associate with Ni and Fe, and to actively disassociate with Si and Te. On the flip side, they find it stimulating to passively associate with Ne and Fi and passively disassociate with Ti and Se. This does not mean I am, in any way, endorsing the 8-function theory. I am, in fact, riffing on the 4-function idea with a few added variables. It's still not possible for INFJs to "use Fi". It's not a function that they can associate with actively.]
Click to expand...
Most specifically "passively disassociate with Ti and Se". Can you explain what you mean by this? While it is true that I can occasionally find Te and Si to be annoying in some way, or present some kind of counter argument to it when things are presented in a Te or Si context (thus 'actively disassociate'), I do not understand what you mean by 'passively disassociate'. Does active Se probe too much? Does active Ti present truths that may weaken an Fe stance and thus present insecurities? I bring this up, because of most types of people, I seem to get on with TP types rather well.


Please do tell on what you mean by 'passively disassociate' and why. I would be most interested to hear it!
 
Last edited:
You get bonus points for getting along with level 3 people. But of course, everyone has to start somewhere, that's why we have level 1 and 2.
 
Zero Angel said:
Most specifically "passively disassociate with Ti and Se". Can you explain what you mean by this? While it is true that I can occasionally find Te and Si to be annoying in some way, or present some kind of counter argument to it when things are presented in a Te or Si context (thus 'actively disassociate'), I do not understand what you mean by 'passively disassociate'. Does active Se probe too much? Does active Ti present truths that may weaken an Fe stance and thus present insecurities? I bring this up, because of most types of people, I seem to get on with TP types rather well.


Please do tell on what you mean by 'passively disassociate' and why. I would be most interested to hear it!
Click to expand...

Certainly. It's based on a theory I had.

It's my understanding that INFJs don't actively "use" any function other than Ni+Fe. These are the only functions that INFJs like having control over and use confidently to achieve motives for their Ego. The unconscious functions, though they affect the perception and decision-making of the conscious, are more or less foil. They exist only to strengthen the dominant and auxiliary further. Our tertiary and inferior functions are never fully differentiated. These are parts of our personality/psyche that we dissociate with/dislike; the only way to healthily use these functions is under the influence of our dominant and auxiliary (Ni+Fe). If we make an effort to "use" these functions outside of that, it is a highly unrewarding and draining activity.

Ti and Se remain at the back of our minds, sometimes interfering, often times complementing our dominant and auxiliary functions. We neither enjoy their undifferentiated usage, nor wish to diminish their influence, as they are compatible with our dominant and auxiliary and like I said, provide a foil to balance our worldview.

On the other hand, Ne and Fi, while immediately recognizable, are redundant. They exist but contradict our primary associations, which are with Ni and Fe. Even though we enjoy their undifferentiated usage (via interaction with others), we don't like "using" these functions ourselves.

Lastly, Si and Te neither provide a foil (they provide a direct contradiction to Ni and Fe) nor are they stimulating to use. These are parts of our psyche that we actively choose to diminish and dissociate with.

Thus, active and passive.

A good analogy would be to think of it in terms of electrical circuits. Ni+Fe provides a short circuit in Ne+Fi's path. While both are parallel branches, current will always flow through the least resistive path, which is Ni+Fe. If we extend this analogy to include the other four functions, Ti+Se is the base in a transistor, the emitter of while is connected in series with Ni+Fe, and Si+Te is an open branch with infinite resistance. :) (The latter part of this analogy is a joke. Thought I'd point that out.)
 
Pick two users; between them we have a set of possible energy flows between them.

In an ideal interaction, the two types would together choose the path of least resistance,
and hence we can determine what functional interaction is most likely to manifest.

Let's say, INFJ and ENTJ.

Now, from this we see:
- a mutual Ni/Se inferior,
- Se/Te and Se/Fe, Ni/Fi and Ni/Ti tertiary,
- Ni/Te, Fe/Ni auxiliary,
- Te/Fe and Fi/Ti parallel,
- Ni and Se identity,
- Fe/Fi and
- Te/Ti complement

Now, Fe/Fi is the stronger relation, so the ENTJs Fi will primarily be used here,
Similarly, the INFJs Ti will be used primarily through the ENTJs Te
However, the INFJs Fe and ENTJs Te are no where near satisfied yet
There will be some Ni-Te cross interaction, but not a whole lot
We do however have a parallel relation with Fe-Te
There will not be a whole lot of cross Se/non-Se interaction
Finally, we will have a merging together of the Ni

So, we have Fi and Ti in complement
Ni and Se in identity, a bit of Ni-Te auxiliary
the remainder of Fe and Te in parallel


A-ha! Just thought of a mathematical definition for compatibility.

Anyone who has been following my reasoning should be able to see it too.

Oh my god, this is brilliant, I can't stress this enough.
 
Last edited:
Arsal said:
Post
Click to expand...

Thats a very apt description and it falls in line with my 'Primary/Aux' are the gas and 'Tert/Inferior' is the brake analogy.

At least personally, I notice that my Ti doesnt have the same 'pull' as Ni and Fe do on my core consciousness -- It is always slaved to my Dom/Aux and I can work with it freely. I find that I also have to work very hard to use Ti in realtime. I can only skillfully use it in situations where my I/O isnt being saturated by incoming information from the real world (ie: when I am fixing something, I am not actively taking in information on the fly so my tertiary can team up with my dominant to accomplish a task for the sake of Fe which temporarily has nothing to do)
 
Last edited:
hi i m confused at MBTI

SEE I M CONFUSED AT IMBT PLS HEL ME WITH THE BASICS . HOW IT ALL STATED AND THE ANALYSIS OF ITS TOO THANKS








Arsal said:
I've been thinking about type compatibility and I'm curious to hear what others think. I believe there is some pattern among which types are most compatible, but I'm not sure how it maps out precisely.

I've created a clunky, semi-working model for this. Opinions of all sorts are welcome.

-----

The psyche is divided into two parts: consciousness and unconsciousness.

The conscious part consists of all the attributes and associations we consider as part of our Ego, and the unconscious part consists of everything we disassociate with, our complexes, Anima/Animus, as our Shadow. The former part is defined by our Dominant and Auxiliary functions, while the latter is defined by the Inferior (individually known as Tertiary and Inferior function).

Feeling and Thinking are opposite and antagonistic in nature, as Sensing and Intuition. Introverted and Extraverted attitudes describe the flow of energy/libido for the individual.

lextypes.gif

​

It is important to note that while the attitudes are dissimilar, the function remains the same. For instance, Introverted Feeling and Extraverted Feeling are, in fact, the same function, but with different orientations towards the same purpose. Fi is Feeling oriented towards the subject while Fe is Feeling oriented towards the object.

Thus, the INFJ type can be simplified to:

Conscious:
Intuition
Feeling

Unconscious:
Thinking
Sensing

Notice how the only other type who shares this basic orientation with INFJs is ENFP, which has an Extraverted attitude towards Intuition. However, it is the same language, spoken differently.

The Conscious functions are rewarding and energizing to use. They are differentiated and part of our identity. The Unconscious functions are only facets of the Conscious, and exist to contrast between the Ego and the Shadow. Making an effort to differentiate the Unconscious functions can be a draining and unrewarding activity, too much of which can lead to neurosis.

-----

Based on this, and the MBTI model, here's how I see intertype relations manifest themselves. Bear in mind the following is entirely heuristic.

I've thought up a Socionics-like model of functions based on the I/E attitudes.

Conscious

Active:
1.Introverted Intuition
2.Extraverted Feeling

 Passive:
3.Extraverted Intuition
4.Introverted Feeling

Unconscious

Passive:
5.Introverted Thinking
6.Extraverted Sensing

Active:
7.Extraverted Thinking
8.Introverted Sensing

[Active and Passive aren't Jungian terms, they're placeholders for concepts which, I'm sure, have much more specific terms. In this context, what I mean by Active and Passive is functions that we actively choose to associate or disassociate with within ourselves, and functions that we passively choose to associate or disassociate with in reaction to others.]

[INFJs find it stimulating to actively associate with Ni and Fe, and to actively disassociate with Si and Te. On the flip side, they find it stimulating to passively associate with Ne and Fi and passively disassociate with Ti and Se. This does not mean I am, in any way, endorsing the 8-function theory. I am, in fact, riffing on the 4-function idea with a few added variables. It's still not possible for INFJs to "use Fi". It's not a function that they can associate with actively.]

In theory, whichever types share the Conscious functions with us - which are parts of our Ego that we recognize and value - we are most compatible with. So an INFJ, would be most compatible with other INFJs and ENFPs, because they share the same Conscious and Unconscious functions.

On the flip side, the least compatible type (theoretically) would be ISTJ. They associate with parts of our the psyche that INFJs actively tend to suppress. The only times ISTJs are stimulating to INFJs is when they indulge in their Fi or Ne, which the ISTJ can find draining.

Despite this, there are different type matches for different occasions, even though some types are going to be far more rewarding to interact with than other types.

-----

In terms of energy relationships (Pod'lair term, sue me):

1.
------------------------------ENFP, INFJ (N-F-T-S) (Identity)


​
ENFJ, INFP (F-N-S-T) (Mirror) ------------------------------- INTJ, ENTP (N-T-F-S) (Companion)



2.
------------------------------INTP, ENTJ (T-N-S-F)


ISFP, ESFJ (F-S-N-T) --------------------------------------- ESFP, ISFJ (S-F-T-N)



3.

ISTJ, ESTP (S-T-F-N) -------------------------------------- ESTJ, ISTP (T-S-N-F)


[1] being the most compatible, followed by [2] and [3] being the least compatible.
N is always going to be the source of stimulation for INFJs as well as F, but not to the same degree.

-----

I'm sure this has flaws, and as I said, it's based on my subjective experiences, so there's not much credibility to it.

(See this link for definitions of Jungian terms: http://www.psychceu.com/Jung/sharplexicon.html)

Thoughts, comments, throw them at me.
Click to expand...
 
Suppose:
- that a person uses their Dom/Aux/Ter/Inf functions in the ratios 6:3:2:1 (so their dominant is used as much as the others combined, and in the case of IxxJ: they are twice as introverted as extraverted and thrice as judging-type as perceiving-type, which all seems somewhat reasonable)
- that compatibility arises solely from an interaction between functions of the same kind (i.e. only identity and complement). The other kind of functions don't interact directly with each other, and so are not considered for a person to person compatibility.
- that we can define a compatability score by multiplying the respective values of the matching functions for each function type and adding these for an identity, complement and general score

Simple procedure for doing this: e.g. between INFJ and INTP
INFJ: Ni = 6; Fe = 3; Ti = 2; Se = 1;
INTP: Ne =3; Fe = 1; Ti = 6; Si = 2;
_____C__18__I___3__I__12_C___2

we obtain a complement score of 18 + 2 = 20 and identity of 3 + 12 = 15,
the compatability score could e.g. be these added (35) or maybe the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle with these as the shorter sides (sqrt(15^2+20^2) = 25)

Using this method we obtain this chart:
210ehhs.jpg


As you'll notice, this gives abysmal scores for an INFJ+ISFJ interaction, so either:
- we concede that these types are incompatible, or
- we change the method used for calculation

Now, we can see the reason that we have such low compatibility between these types is that we are considering each function one at a time, as though they existed independently in a person. This means we've ignored the basic idea that a person's Dominant and Auxiliary will tend to exist together, and so an auxiliary-auxiliary match may well be far more significant than we are making it out to be.

Let's suppose that, to a good level of approximation, we can get an ordering of type compatibility by considering just the relations between the top two functions of a type. Thus we have (D=dominant, A=auxiliary): DD&AA, DA&AD, DD, DA, AD, AA, -. DA and AD are equivalent (assuming compatability is the same for each person in the relationship), DA&AD is about the same as DD, maybe more, and D makes for a stronger interaction than A wherever it arises*. Thus we obtain, for the INFJ:

1. DD&AA = INFJ, ENFP
2. DA&AD = ENFJ, INFP; DD = INTJ, ENTP
3. DA = INTP, ENTJ; AD = ISFP, ESFJ
4. AA = ISFJ, ESFP
5. - = ISTP, ESTJ, ISTJ, ESTP

Which is what Arsal obtained at the start (with the exception that INTP/ENTJ is the same as ISFP/ESFJ, since INFJ relates to ISFP in the same way that INTP relates to INFJ).

*however, it is possible that there might be some degree of clash if one user has a function as dominant and the other auxiliary
 
Last edited:
bickelz said:
I think most of my friends are either extroverts or sensors.
Click to expand...

All the people I know here are extraverted sensors.
It's draining.
 
aerosol said:
All the people I know here are extraverted sensors.
It's draining.
Click to expand...

Introverted sensors can be draining too. It's like they're dead sometimes. Like my chem prof, I wonder if his heart actually beats sometimes.

Maybe it's just that in mother Russia, your heart beats you.
 
Should identity and complement functional relations be treated as equivalent, as I've/we've been doing, or would it be best to treat them as distinct? so that we needn't assume that because an INFJ has a certain compatability rating with one type, that it has the same rating with that type's complement. e.g. an INFJ may be more compatible with an ISTP than with an ESTJ.
 
Last edited:
Personally, being an ESFP, or even ISFP if you will, I probably get on with SJ types the least.
 
Where this has led me thus far: flow diagrams.
 
I recommend that there may be value in considering a penalty for having the PoLR (tertiary opposite) in the dominant or parent cognitive preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top