This is a work-in-progress.
Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV
Part II Overview
Now we will cover the relations between pairs of Positions between two Types.
Layer 4 – Attitude Relations
Functions are how Attitudes relate to one another within a Type. Attitude Relations are how two Types relate to the same Aspect. Thus the theory now begins turning towards intertype relations.
Types have four Attitudinal Relations with each other; one for each Position. When considering the relational quality between two Types, we should imagine the Attitude Relations in place of the four Attitudes. I will go over the way the placement works and after I will summarize the particular Attitude Relations.
Attitude Relations can be divided into two main categories: Identical and Non-Identical. The four Identical Attitude Relations (ID1, ID2, ID3, ID4) correspond to the four possible Positions which can be Identical between Types. The twelve Non-Identical Relations (R+, R-, P+, P-, SI+, SI-, IG+, IG-, A+, A-, EX+, EX-) correspond to cases where the partners do not share the same Aspect in the same Position. Each Non-Identical Attitude Relation will be either Superior (+) or Inferior (-) which simply refers to whether the Type in the partnership has the Aspect in a “higher” Position or a “lower” Position compared to its partner. The 1st Position is highest and the 4th is the lowest.
Here is a Diagram that illustrates how these Relations are generated (inspired by a similar chart on Rob’s site):
You may want to periodically refer back to this chart as you continue reading this section and the following one on Type Relations.
Attitude Relation Descriptions
Now I will walk you through the individual natures of the Attitude Relations. You will observe that the Identical relations are relatively straightforward compared to the Non-Identical relations. The latter will require more explanation. I have included diagrams that were inspired by this page on bestsocionics.com.
Identical 1 (ID1):
Example – 1E:1E
An overall respectful and familiar relation despite the occasional clash on details. Low mutual stimulation.
Identical 2 (ID2):
Example – 2V:2V
Stimulating and agreeable. Prompts discussion and growth in the Aspect.
Identical 3 (ID3):
Example – 3L:3L
A very comforting relation because of mutual sympathy towards the shared area of anxiety.
Identical 4 (ID4):
Example – 4F:4F
A very unstimulating and boring but technically agreeable relation. The relevant Aspect will be pushed from conversation.
Resolution Superior/Inferior (R+/R-):
Example – 1L:4L / 4L:1L
Tied for the most compatible relation. The Superior partner efficiently provides the finished product that the Inferior partner demands. The Superior is pleased because their area of confidence is marketable and the Inferior is relieved from exerting effort. Of course, with relational asymmetry, this relation becomes one-sided and must be balanced by the other positions.
Process Superior/Inferior (P+/P-):
Example – 2E:3E / 3E:2E
The other most compatible relation. The Superior partner fearlessly guides discussion and exploration of the relevant Aspect which reassures the timid and skeptical Inferior. The Inferior partner also moderates the overly-intrepid Superior. As with the Resolution relation, asymmetry can cause one-sidedness.
Semi-Identical Superior/Inferior (SI+/SI-):
Example – 1V:2V / 2V:1V
A positive relation in short bursts. Both partners respect one another’s self-assuredness in the Aspect and they can profitably discuss shared interests. However over the longer-term this relation sours a little because the Superior does not know whether to (subconsciously) see the Inferior as an Identical 1 or as a Resolution Inferior (they are in fact neither). And the Inferior does not know whether to view the Superior as an Identical 1 or as a Process Inferior (they are neither). Thus misunderstandings begin to multiply. The Superior expects submission and the Inferior expects equal terms.
Ignoring Superior/Inferior (IG+/IG-):
Example – 3F:4F / 4F:3F
The Inferior partner downplays the significance of the Aspect that the Superior partner is quite concerned about. This breeds anxiety and resentment in the Superior partner. The Inferior partner becomes irritated with having their attention and energy redirected to the Aspect they feel unbothered by. Overall a quite negative relation, but it takes time to build the negativity up. The partners can maintain placid relations in this Aspect if they do not dig too deep.
Argumentative Superior/Inferior (A+/A-):
Example – 1L:3L / 3L:1L
The least compatible relation over both the short term and long. The Superior comes at the Inferior from one of two (or both) directions:
1) The Superior sees self-doubt and expects the Inferior to submit and receive. The Inferior is never fully satisfied with the Superior’s product and displays continual skepticism. The Superior feels slighted that the other denied their confidently produced advice. The inferior resents the lack of assurance and dialogue.
2) The Superior sees the Others-Negative skepticism from the Inferior and expects that they are an individual of similar refined taste and confident disdain. The Inferior exposes themselves as uncertain and wavering which disappoints their partner.
Thus slightedness, resentment, disappointment, and disdain are characteristic of this very disagreeable relation.
Exhaustive Superior/Inferior (EX+/EX-):
Example – 2E:4E / 4E:2E
Another overall negative relation, but less confrontational compared to the Argumentative. This one is defined by gradual fatigue and disappointment. The reason is that the Superior partner falsely sees the Inferior as a possible fellow collaborator; someone who will take but also give in the explorative journey soon to commence. At the very least someone who needs to be reassured continuously. Of course the Inferior has very different plans: they’d prefer if their partner were to deliver an easily digestible nugget for them to consume without any exertion of energy on their part. The Superior is gradually disappointed when their attempts to intrigue the interlocutor are met with apathy. The Inferior ends up feeling put upon. If they initially believed that the Superior was their R+ partner, this proves to be false.
Note that a single Attitude Relation does not speak for the entire Type Relation. All four relations must be considered and, to a certain extent, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Additionally, we must keep in mind that these relations cannot speak for the entirety of two individual’s interactions which are mediated by many contextual factors. I believe that these relations nonetheless present observable and significant interpersonal tendencies.
Here is another graphical depiction of the Attitude Relations:
( ! ) stands for Self-Positive. You can think of it as self-certainty and boldness in that Position’s Aspect.
( ? ) stands for Self-Negative. You can think of it as self-doubt and uncertainty regarding the Aspect.
( O ) stands for Others-Positive. You can think of it as an open door or suction-tube to the outside world.
( X ) stands for Others-Negative. You can think of it like a little shield protecting the Aspect from outside influence.
Examples
For an example of how placement works, let’s compare the LVFE and the LEFV. They share the same Aspect in the 1st Position (Logic) and so ID1 (Identical 1st Position) would be placed in the 1st Position for both Types. They do not share the 2nd Position; the LVFE has 2V whereas the LEFV has 2E. We then ask ourselves where the LEFV’s V Aspect is placed and where the LVFE’s E Aspect is placed. Both are in the 4th Position. so we place the EX+ (Exhaustion Superior) in the LVFE’s 2nd Position and we place the EX+ (Exhaustion Superior) in the LEFV’s 2nd Position. They once again share a Position in the 3rd, so both get ID3 there. Lastly the 4th Position is the reverse of the 2nd in this case, so both receive EX- (Exhaustion Inferior) there. This may be a bit confusing, but bear with me.
Continuing our example, the Attitude Relation structure of the LVFE : LEFV Type Relation would look like this:
| LVFE | ID1 (1L:1L) | EX+ (2V:4V) | ID3 (3F:3F) | EX- (4E:2E) |
| LEFV | ID1 (1L:1L) | EX+ (2E:4E) | ID3 (3F:3F) | EX- (4V:2V) |
Notice how the relation between these two Types is not perfectly identical, but it is nonetheless symmetrical.
Now let’s compare the LVFE to another type, the VFLE:
| LVFE | A+ (1L:3L) | SI- (2V:1V) | P- (3F:2F) | ID4 (4E:4E) |
| VFLE | SI+ (1V:2V) | P+ (2F:3F) | A- (3L:1L) | ID4 (4E:4E) |
Interestingly, the relation between the LVFE and the VFLE is non-symmetrical. If you were to overlay the two rows on top of one another, you would see two different Attitude Relations in three out of four columns. This will have implications for the nature of their Type Relationship.
Let’s do one more example between the LVFE and the EFVL:
| LVFE | R+ (1L:4L) | P+ (2V:3V) | P- (3F:2F) | R- (4E:1E) |
| EFVL | R+ (1E:4E) | P+ (2F:3F) | P- (3V:2V) | R- (4L:1L) |
This relation includes two very different Types, in fact they are complete opposites. But notice how they are perfectly balanced and symmetrical towards one another. Keep this notion of balanced vs. imbalanced relations in mind for when we move on to the Type Relations.