Relationships of duality
This is the relationship of psychological complement. It is the most favorable in providing for one's basic activities. It is also the most comfortable, because partners do not need to change their own personality in order to adapt to the other (although every successful communication requires some effort, and the dual partnership is no exception). In other words, you may "remain yourself" in communication with your dual. If you succeed in getting along with your dual (especially of the opposite sex), responsibilities in your pair will be distributed in such a way that strong traits of one partner will protect weak traits of the other.
Conflicts in dual pairs may take place, but they are rare because their solution does not really require anything beyond your basic capabilities. Partners suit each other like two halves of the same photo, making a complete picture. But because of this lack of conflict the result is that your dual seems to fade into the background when amongst other people. They seem to be too simple and ordinary, and thus not deserving of your attention. This first viewpoint is more common of extraverts. The second viewpoint consists in saying to yourself: he/she is too good for me and will hardly like me. This viewpoint is more characteristic to introverts. However, both these viewpoints are rather peculiar to people without experience of dual communication in childhood.
How can one detect his dual? Initially communication with your dual does not create any special feeling of comfort: everything progresses quite ordinarily and does not awake special emotions. Your dual is perceived as your shadow, as something quite natural and thus meaningless. Only upon parting with him/her you gradually begin to understand how actually you needed him/her. Losing your dual is perceived very painfully. Finally you begin to realize that his/her presence calms you down and gives a feeling of protection. This effect even increases for duals with suitable subtypes.
But do not overestimate duality! This is a model of relations for dealing with everyday problems. As you get used to your dual, you will begin to want something more, namely social significance of your personality, certain challenges and deviations from everyday activities. This cannot be achieved within dual relationships. And finally, do not forget that no dual pair is omnipotent – on the contrary, it is strong only within certain fields of activity, where the dual's strong traits complement each other.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to achieve social recognition without the support of your dual. In general, dualization is vitally necessary in two cases: first, in unfavorable social situations when your survival is at stake, and second, when you move upwards along the social hierarchy in which the competition is acute, i.e. for your career.
Relationships of Activation/Activity
These are the easiest relations to start. Activity partners do not experience any difficulties in communication, which is pleasantly surprising to both. It is as if they warm each other up, encourage activity in one another. Such interaction is very attractive, especially given the right subtypes. However, given more time relations "overheat" and partners grow tired of constant activation. In this case it is better to distance. Then it is safe to return back and experience intensification once again. Relations thus have a pulsating character. The pleasure and ease of communication that are highly prized during leisure times is replaced by problems when partners join to complete everyday tasks. Here they start to give each other advice which hits their weak functions, instead of taking up the workload themselves. This is unpleasant to both. However, overall this advice is useful and should not be underestimated. The problem is that no matter how you react, you cannot develop your weak features further. Another difficulty lies in the fact that activity partners do not transfer information in the way that is best received by another. One partner thinks that information is too vague and hazy, to the other it seem too crude, shallow, and grounded. This is explained by the rationality-irrationality differences. However, the overall content of information is still acceptable to both. Activity relations are not very well suited for everyday or workday interaction because they don't encourage optimal vitality. They are best for holidays and spending leisure time together. Two dual dyads upon meeting each other can experience mobilization due to presence of their activity partners in the other dyad, which creates a festive atmosphere. Taking on common tasks is difficult due to unreliability and unpredictability of activity partner. Each partner may act in a way that's best for him or her without taking the other into consideration. Effectively partners cannot fully rely on each other at any time. Term "activation" is more applicable to a pair of introverts. Extraverted pairs instead experience a soothing effect and greater introversion.
These are relationships of incomplete duality or partial duality. While talking to each other, the understanding between the partners is very good and motives are clear. However, the extrovert partner has a tendency not to listen to introverted partner and continues developing his/her own topics for conversations. But the introvert is rarely offended by this and as a rule finds ways to adapt. In semi-duality there are always many topics for conversation and such conversations do not get boring. If semi-duals are of opposite sex they may feel attraction towards each other and temptation to get closer. Somewhere in the middle of this process, one of them commits and acts abruptly which increases the distance and re-sets boundaries.
However, partners are not much discouraged and continue their attempts to become closer, only to once again run into a bump on a seemingly even path. Looking from aside it seems like here is a true passion and the flames of love which are burning wildly. This aspect of semi-dual relationships is depicted very well by the following poem: "Into the window the moths fly towards the fire, splattering against the glass but not losing hope". Semi-dual relationships invigorate duals. This type of relationships keeps them in state of constant readiness. This tonic effect is achieved due to periodic shocks that do not let them relax. These relationships can be compared to getting splashed by cold water after the person has just woken up and gotten out of bed. Comfort levels with such a partner can be very contrasting: happiness of being close on one side and bewilderment and confusion on the other.
Relationships of illusion/mirage
These are relationships of relaxation. They are sufficiently comfortable and pleasant and favorable for family life, but ineffective in common and everyday activity. No other type of intertype relation has the same capacity to relax, demobilize and demotivate partners as relationships of illusion. It feels comfortable to sit around, rest and discuss extraneous issues with one's illusion partner. The person as if blurs, falls out of focus, turns into shaky mirage. With such a partner one does not want to engage in any serious undertakings. Thus mutual business activity is very complicated.
Partners are completely at a loss when it comes to motivating each other for any actions. What your mirage partner is striving towards seems unsubstantial, undeserving of attention. Partners expect different behavior from each other, thus they "cool down" each other in whatever activities they do undertake together. It is as if they are playing a game of broken phone. This kind of communication may seem amusing from aside.
The introverted partner in these relationships will try to impede all attempts of the extraverted partner to impose his/her opinion and reassert the autonomy. The extravert will try to re-make the introverted partner into a "normal" person. Break ups in these relations are usually short lived. People are drawn to each other. At the same time, each partner evaluates the abilities of the other critically. At times illusion relationships become very warm. This happens when partners talk less to each other and don’t try to manage accomplishing something together. Result discussions of jointly finished projects successfully are encouraging, but attempts to start on a new project face the same difficulties as before.
These relationships are well suited for friendship based on common interests, values and hobbies. Mirror partners are often good friends. They find it interesting to spend time together. Although, sometimes they may lack openness while communicating. In mirror pair, the partners are both either theorists or pragmatists. Therefore, they can always find common topics for conversation. These relationships are even better when a third person is present who is dual to one of partner and activator of another.
These relations are called "mirror relations" because words of one partner are often reflected in actions of another. One mirror partner passively thinks about something, the other actively implement in real life. However, this implementation is never up to expectations. The mirror image is only a reflection; therefore, mirror partners try to correct each other's actions from their own point of view. Because of that, there may be confusion and even criticism and reprimands. Each attempt to adjust the behavior of another will usually fail. If we consider the verbal aspect of communication, then mirror relationships could be called as relationships of constructive criticism. Each person sees one half of the same issue, so it's always interesting to hear what your mirror partner thinks regarding the particular subject matter. In the event of completing work together, then there is mutual correction and clarification. Criticism is easily understood and is often considered constructive.
For family life, these relationships are not desirable: minor goals will coincide for both partners, but global, far-reaching and long-term goals often do not. Methods of achieving these goals will also remain different.
Business relationships are relationships of equal partners. It is more accurate to call this type of relations a partnership or cooperation rather than a friendship. There might be a few barriers in communication here. Partners can tell each other anything. There is a certain sense of safety in these relationships, i.e. each partner feels that the other doesn't pose any threat. And of course, this is a very welcome feeling, especially if the person is used to a more hostile environment.
In addition, these relationships make both people play a more prominent role in the society. Due to this, there is an opportunity to play "cat and mouse" with each other: during conversation both may intentionally alternate the pressure and then let it go. In these type of conversations one partner always has some advantage over another, depending on the theme or topic of a particular discussion.
This type of relationships is perfect for successful cooperation in business. However, sometimes verbal fun can turn into excessive pressure. This pressure always comes from a strong function of the partner and is perceived as a bolt of lightning from a clear sky, but major disagreements are rare. Typically, partners try to help each other. In any event, the request for assistance by one of the partners is perceived correctly by another and help is in the right doze. In summary, we can say that these relationships have an average degree of comfort. One doesn't have anything against another. There is a sense of having a reasonable minimum, which reflects the satisfaction of communicating with an equal and not boring partner.
These are relations of distant relatives who talk about formally appropriate and necessary topics. They observe rules of politeness and hospitality, but they do not wish to delve into the details of the relationships with each other. Over time, these conversations start to be boring. One partner forms the impression that another partner is trying to solve problems by starting from wrong angles or in a wrong order and does not wish to acknowledge one’s point of view. Usually these partners strive to reach a compromise at some mid-point.
In a group of people these relationships noticeably improve because the other partner interacts with other people in the appealing and admirable way. In this sense both partners can learn a few things from one another, where one can learn to be more restrained and the other can learn to be more active.
Kindred partners can seek advice from each other. However, what often happens is that the person providing advice starts to use this information for his/her own purposes while the other person is left with nothing from this interaction. Same events both kindred partners view from different points of view, as if the same event could benefit one and harm another. Thus, people often see each other as egocentric, though they would never openly say that.
There is very little understanding on various methods of accomplishing the same work. Their most developed behavioral functions are flipped upside down in each other. Both partners feel that they are equal, especially if both are introverts, so competition is rare. However, when one presides over the other this may lead to disagreements and conflicts.
There is a lot of understanding between identical partners, but also there is an inability to truly help one another. Typically identical partners develop a sense of sympathy for each other right away. There is always a desire to support or justify another, because in the similar situation you would have done the same. On the other hand, communication and interaction quickly get boring. New information is not coming from your identical partner creating a feeling of uselessness.
Uninformative partner seems boring and dull. Over time, identical relationships become either neutral or cool. This should not be a surprise: after the exchange of some information both parties are not interested to keep a discussion going, knowing of the same conclusion well in advance, unless there is very large difference in the experience or knowledge. Then there may be great interest and attraction towards each other. Such relationships are ideal for teacher-student type of interaction. In this case collaboration is also effective, as it adds two forces in same direction. Identical relations are of great educational value, because they allow a person to look at self objectively and evaluate own strengths and weaknesses. Taking such look at ourselves is not always pleasant. These relationships help to develop a proper self-identity.
This type of relationships is called relationships of unstable distance, i.e. partners find it difficult to establish the right psychological distance. The right distance is possible to achieve only when both are interacting alone. Both partners become impressed by the cordiality and warmth of another. This may begin the transition process to be psychologically closer. The minute a third person appears brings a devastating effect: competition and arguments begin to surface, which sometimes degenerates into caustic debates. Nobody will want to drop their own credibility in the eyes of that third person, because such debate will center on strengths of each partner. The minute they start communicating in a group of people, psychological climate suddenly begins to change: introvert gradually becomes alienated, relationships lose their warmth, they become formal and cautious. Both parties secretly begin to regret previously moving towards more intimate and open relationships. Extravert seems to think that there has been misunderstanding with the degree of unfairness. This brings surprise because previously communicating one-on-one was easy and there was mutual understanding of great deal.
An introvert tries to stop any activity with an extravert, starts strong accusations and criticism. Extrovert tries to respond in the same manner. These peculiar relations vaguely resemble alternation of semi-duality with supervision. Extravert is probably in a more vulnerable position here. On one hand, extrovert feels "like behind the enemy lines": takes everything personal and fears to make the wrong step to be more exposed. On the other hand, an extrovert still sees that the partner is a good and decent person in general. By having high level of personal, social, and cultural development and involvement will help contrary partners avoid mutual recrimination.
These are relationships of coexistence in complete misunderstanding of each other. This coexistence could be peaceful if the partners are logical types. However, if the partners are ethical types they will often discuss and review their relationships. There could be more tension in quasi-identical relationships and condemnation of another’s actions. However, this attitude can be minimized if the partners are united by the same goal and have to depend on one another. The first concession is usually made by irrational type and rational one simply accepts it. Quasi-identical partner, as a rule, does not hurt your weakest spots and you do not feel a threat from him, but neither any equality. Quasi-Identical person seems to be less capable. However, in dealing with issues you failed to solve he/she achieves a lot more for some reason. Due to this fact, self-esteem could be hurt and this situation is perceived as unjust. The most unpleasant thing in these relationships is the inability to understand a person fully. There is always a need to "translate" received information to your own language. It is almost impossible to read and understand your quasi-identical partner. Deciphering of the quasi-identical information takes away a lot of energy and these efforts seem wasteful and useless.
Any ideas or creations of quasi-identical partner are always lacking something. Conversations are never heavy, but they do not bring any satisfaction. It seems that the quasi-identical partner is confusing everything on purpose, making things either overly complicated or too simple, straying to the side.
These are rather colorless relationships. Quasi-identical partners are able to find common topics of conversation and rally over the same issues, but they see different solutions to difficult situations. Over time, there is a sense that you are wasting time. Therefore, there is nothing in particular that would unite quasi-identical partners, they break up easily and without regrets.
Relationships of Super-ego
There are relations of mutual respect. Superego means "super-I". One superego partner is perceived as a distant and somewhat mysterious ideal. His mannerisms and way of thinking inspire interest. At large distances, these relations are often outwardly cool while internally partners often develop mutual sympathies and affection for one another. If there is no common topic for conversation, which would be interesting for both partners, communication carries rather formal character. There is desire to express one's point of view rather than to listen to your partner. This happens because the topic of conversation often falls in the area of strong functions of one partner that are weak in another, listening to which is uninteresting. This creates an impression that your partner understands and is interested in you, even though you suspect that this interest is shallow.
When the distance grows closer, the nature of these relations takes on a new, less pleasant undertone. In words, understanding usually remains good, especially with matching subtypes. But in deeds it is as if the partner does everything to frustrate you. Partners either fail to inform each other about their intentions, or do not listen to each other closely. Thus they end up doing the opposite of what their partner had expected of them. This can cause many arguments and conflict, but even in this case internal affection towards one's partner does not disappear or even diminish. Hope that the ideal is still achievable persists.
Extraversion-introversion of partners has significant effect on these relations. In a pair of two extraverts, one is usually dissatisfied that the other pays too little attention to him and is too preoccupied with outside matters. In a pair of introverts, it is the opposite case, one partner feels that the other is too intrusive and clingy, and doesn't leave him alone. In both cases this results in misunderstandings and quarrels.
Relationships of Conflict
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. One evokes a feeling of awe by showing the high level of development of characteristics and style of thinking where another one is weak. At first contact and convergence seem possible, but along the way a lot of things seem to persistently go wrong. Pondering about the reasons and not being able to find common language, one comes to conclusion that the cause of misunderstanding is not that significant and easily removable. Both feel that the only necessary thing one need to invest is more effort and your partner will understand you.
There is persistent unwitting desire to somehow positively predispose this person to the way you see things. However, these attempts are like walking on the edge of an abyss – there is always a danger of falling down and getting drawn into fruitless, exhausting fights. In these quarrels, partners inevitably verbally hit each other's in the most vulnerable places. There is a desire to prove something to your conflicting partner, to clarify, to fully explain yourself, to justify and somehow the other party, as if 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 assistance to 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/she clearly cannot do due the weaknesses. Due to this, these relationships often lack a sense of security. This is particularly acute in a perceived hostile environment. Person often feels relieved after parting with conflict partner.
Relationships of Benefit: Social Request
These relationships are asymmetric: first partner relates to the second not in the same way as the later relates to the first. First partner, who is called request transmitter, or benefactor, looks at the second partner, called beneficiary, as someone who is a rank lower, underestimating him/her. The second partner, on the contrary, thinks that the other partner is an interesting, meaningful person, overestimating him/her at first.
Beneficiary can become very fond of benefactor and admire his/her behavior, demeanor, ability to easily do the things beneficiary aspires. Beneficiary admires the style of thoughts and creative approach of its benefactor. In presence of benefactor, beneficiary unwittingly begins to try to win his/her favor, to please, for some unknown reasons to self. This starts with little things and progressing to more and more things. From aside it looks as if the beneficiary is trying to somehow justify some actions to the benefactor.
At the same time there is something in behavior of benefactor that the beneficiary finds irritating. Those features that the benefactor demonstratively puts forward to attract attention and look good in public view seep into the subconscious of the beneficiary and awaken a vague desire to remove the conditions that make the benefactor act so unnaturally. The beneficiary may also be unaware what is it exactly that he is supposed to do? The issued request is not individual, but social in nature i.e. it encompasses problems of the groups of people to which this pair belongs.
From aside, relations of benefit look smooth and conflict-free. Initiator of these relations is almost always the benefactor. Beneficiary feels that deep inside the benefactor is positively predisposed towards him/her. The benefactor tries to encourage and support the beneficiary in any way possible. Reciprocating feedback only happens at initial stages. Further attempts to establish relationships on equal conditions are not successful, and the reverse connection does not get any better. The benefactor, alas, does not hear the beneficiary. As a consequence of this, beneficiary moves away and tries to keep distance from the benefactor, sometimes may even start to pick on him/her by way on his base function which is much weaker in benefactor. Thus, these relationships can be called a relationships of patronage/protection in the absence of reciprocate action. Over time, the beneficiary may begin to completely disregard the benefactor. This happens when request has been fully understood as a social one.
Relationships of Supervision
These are asymmetric relationships. Supervisor constantly “monitors” supervisee, drawing attention to his/her weakest spot. The impression is that the supervisor constantly wants to figure out what supervisee is doing and how it being done. Supervisee often gets the impression that he/she is being watched all the time as if a guinea pig. However, this does not mean that the supervisor always verbally points out perceived shortcomings of supervisee. It is that supervisee internally feels that the supervisor can do so at any time and, therefore, initially in the presence of supervisor supervisee exists in a state of tension and readiness. Supervisor seems like a significant person; all actions deserve attention. Supervisee wants to earn recognition and praise of the supervisor.
However, the supervisor always underestimates the supervisee and perceives his/her thoughts and actions as insignificant, which incites a lot of resentment in the supervisee. At first, supervisee may be encouraged by this and want to prove the usefulness to the supervisor, but all attempts are unsuccessful. Supervisor seems smug and petty. Supervisor always finds faults, tries to teach and re-educate the supervisee. Supervisee seems interesting and capable, but just missing something and seems to require some additional help and suggestions. However, all advices prove useless: supervisee does not accept any of that, which further increases the desire of supervisor to re-audit.
Supervisee seems foolish. And not because supervisee is unable, but simply because as if supervisee just does not want to listen. This periodically causes frustration to the supervisor. However, due to the weaknesses of supervisee being unable to complete something is the actual reason. These relationships may be called "guardianship" of supervisor over the supervisee, which can be very annoying for the later. Sensing the vulnerability, supervisee is inclined to make attempts to escape this control, especially around other people: supervisee tried to be personal with the supervisor, tries to argue, gives orders. However, such attempts are fruitless. Supervisor, as a rule, does not take offense personally but continues with the re-education attempts. These relationships are well illustrated by an analogy "mother-naughty child".
Sometimes supervision couple is very tightly knit together. This is because both people can feel their social significance: the supervisor as the guardian, caring for the supervisee, and supervisee as the object of care, whose value is recognized in this way.