From Wikisocion

This page or section needs work.

This is the description of intertype relationships with supporting stories gathered and compiled by Ekaterina Filatova. Sections 1-9 have been improved from machine translation; sections 10-15 need further work.









Chapter 1. Dual relationships.

As has already been mentioned, this is the most favorable combination of sociotypes. These relations are called dualization, or full complementarity. Obviously for any of us the most favorable relationship forms with the person who has a complementary asymmetry of functions.

What is the meaning of the above statements? Mainly that the individual meets a partner whose energy support (by strong function) he readily accepts via his suggestive function, and vice versa - he himself supports the suggestive channel of his partner. Such complementary types in socionics are called duals. Information coming from dual partner is seen as support, correction, willingness to facilitate resolution of any difficult task. At the same time, neither of the partners feels the pressure on their vulnerable function, because here the orientation of functions of the 2nd and 3rd channels is different.

Thus, in each dual pair, in the first two channels there are four complementary functions. Two dual pairs with the same set of functions form a quadra. Total Total number of quadra is four; in literature one can find their names: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or simply I, II, III, IV, respectively.

Below we refer to the leading elements for all four Quadra:

1st Quadra (Alpha)

Don Quixote, ILE (Ne-Ti) - Dumas, SEI (Si-Fe) ; Hugo, ESE (Fe-Si) - Robespierre, LII (Ti-Ne)



2nd Quadra (Beta)

Hamlet, EIE (Fe-Ni) - Maxim, LSI (Ti- Se) ; Zhukov, SLE (Se-Ti) - Yesenin, IEI (Ni-Fe)



3rd Quadra (Gamma)

Napoleon (Se-Fi) - Balzac (Ni-Te) ; Jack (Te-Ni) - Dreiser (Fi-Se)



4th Quadra (Delta)

Stierlitz (Te-Si) - Dostoevsky (Fi-Ne) ; Huxley (Ne-Fi) - Gabin (Si-Te)



In each quadra, the types are arranged in such a way that none of them exert pressure on "painful" functions of others - to the contrary, information sent by the strong functions of any partner is perceived as support by others. Thus, the quadra provides more complete cooperation than an isolated dual pair: psychophysical regulation in this group is by far the best and all of participants have a sense of mutual understanding and support ... But back to duals.

It is easy to see that duals are different from each other in several characteristics: extraversion - introversion, ethics - logic, sensation - intuition. However, on the aspect of rationality - irrationality they are the same. It turns out that in these three features duals complement each other, while similarity in rationality or irrationality ensures the same rhythms of life. In each quadra, there is one rational and one irrational pair.

We now turn to the examples of dual relationships.

Dual friendships easily originate already in childhood. Here is a description of this friendship Maxim-Hamlet, from Hamlet's point of view:

Hamlet - Maxim (EIE-LSI)

Valerik is my friend; from childhood we couldn't do without one another. When we met, we could play together for a long time. True, sometimes it seemed to me that he would offend me, because he did not always agree with me. Then I demonstratively would leave and go home, but soon our quarrel would be forgotten.

In high school, without noticing it, I was very dependent on Valerik, felt protected by his side. In the sports section, I agreed to go with him but could only play only on the same team with him; and if it was needed to make a trip to town to buy something - then again only with him. He had difficult time befriending others guys. I always had to help him in this. All the holidays and birthdays he again went only together with me.

Later, when we were teenagers, it could be that we would criticize one another: I was critical of him for his predictability and his desire to be always right, he on his end thought I was too thoughtless and pretentious. Nevertheless, we remained the closest of friends. We always really needed one another, because with him I could take off the tragic mask, and he, in turn, could feel comfortable and open up his heart without fear of any betrayal. Positive aspect of our friendship was the fact that we were happy to listen to each other: I was happy to listen to his successes in programming, and he - about my new love. I myself, of course, was not very interested in programming. But when Valerik talked about it, I would be lit up by his ideas and experience it together with him. The same can be said about his relation towards my "little tragedies" ... We were very fortunate that during the school years we could be together.

In this story, as we see, dual relationships are presented in a, so to say, ideal, perhaps the refined version. All the best aspects of these relations have manifested in this case: a successful combination of temperaments, support of the weak features, intelligent and productive mutual criticism.

The latter is particularly interesting and wonderful in dual pairs. For example, a scene between fellow students Jack and Dreiser.

Dreiser - Jack (ESI-LIE)

Many think that our Oleg (Jack) is a conflicting person, but with Alex (Dreiser), they have never had a fight during all the years of studying - they study, prepare for tests, and relax together.

One time, they went for a swim to the Ob Sea (Novosibirsk Reservoir). Oleg left his clothes on the bench somewhere far away from the shore, and Alex - took his clothes with him and laid them on the sand near the water. After they had their fill, they left the water happily. Oleg went to get his things, but they went missing! Clothing, watches, money, documents, keys ... Only shoes were left.

- Oh, how cool, I've never robbed! - Oleg exclaimed in excitement. Alex did not share his enthusiasm: - Well, you unlucky bum, what is to be done with you now? - Come on, lets look in the bushes, maybe they are there! - Uhu. As if they left you anything.

So they went back to the boat station and called the police, which arrived after three hours. They were taken to the police station, where Oleg made a stunning impression on everyone with his beach looks combined with an ever enduring sense of optimism. Alex trudged home to bring Oleg at least something to wear.

Then they started to make an inventory of the missing items. Attendant policeman asks Oleg:

- What did you have? - Mm-mm ... Pants. - What kind? - Well, simple, black. - And approximately how much did they cost? - Fifty rubles - shrugs Oleg. - What? These pants today cost no less than a hundred! - resented Alex

In this short story, it is easily to track the complementary effects of the opposites, which are typical for dual pairs. Discontented grumbling of Dreiser is nothing more nor less than show of care about his carefree companion, who, of course, understands this well, so that accusations of this kind, even if reciprocal, never take the form of conflict.

Especially beneficial and healing are dual relations within one's family circle. Such arrangement creates an atmosphere conducive not only to the dual pair, but also for other people around them (especially if parents of the spouses are also duals). Here is the story of such dual pair (Zhukov - husband, wife Yesenin).

Esenin - Zhukov (IEI-SLE)

I know Irina for 15 years. She grew up in a very conflicting family, was a very sensitive, vulnerable, nervous person. Always and towards everyone she would show her "thorns" - like a hedgehog. I knew that she has gotten married a few years ago, and recently we ran into each other.

She said that she lives in her husband's family. First year she cried a lot, with or without cause, although relatives treated her very well and tried to support and to help her. Even this alerted her, since she always expected criticism and frustration - but in response she was only encouraged. So it went for about a year. Then she calmed down, started believing in the goodness and friendliness of people around her, became less guarded and "prickly", started accepting the help offered, and finally has learned how to live in an atmosphere of psychological comfort. Now she is a radiant and joyful person. Even her gait and her facial expressions have changed ... At our first meeting I didn't even recognize her!

Now lets think: does the fact of duality guarantee conflict-free, supportive relationships?

The author of this book once had a chance to observe an interaction between two duals that almost ended in tears. Strict, self-possessed, puritanically brought up man of logical type attended a house party thrown together by a frivolous, greedy, and arrogant woman, who happened to be his dual type. She pursued him all night, made playful allusions, clung to him talking about the most trivial topics, in the end forcing him to finally flee. "Is this really my dual? - he asked me the next day. - No, she cannot be! "

Obviously, the success of any relations (dual included), will be influenced by upbringing... But the matter is not only in upbringing. Personal relationships - is a special realm, where a lot depends on the personal qualities and will of the individual. However, the situation changes dramatically as soon as we take a look at professional and workplace relations. Here, whether we like it or not, the main defining element will be correspondence of sociotype to the nature of the work: this factor directly influences relations between people at the workplace.

Lets imagine ourselves Zhukov as a director of a company. Let's say he needs an administrative assistant whose duties would include organizing receptions of colleagues from other institutions, to create a comfortable, soft, pleasant atmosphere in the waiting room of his rather rough boss, tell him in time how to best get around the "sharp corners", where to start a conversation with his competitor to achieve the desired result, etc. It is clear that in this case his dual is quite appropriate for this role, that is, a person who will complement Zhukov's weaknesses with his own strong qualities (in this case Esenin is needed).

What if this same manager needs an employee whose duties would include the introduction of this company's products to other industries? Then he needs an assertive and energetic figure, for which role Yesenin would not be suitable. If, for purely formal socionics reasons, we will offer this director for this position his dual, Esenin, then, most likely, such recommendation will lead to a dispute: active and operative Zhukov will hardly be pleased with soft, yielding, relaxed and somewhat disorganized assistant who does not meet the required qualities of this position of "pusher-salesman".

Another example: lets assume that the head of the design team is an employee of type Maxim. If the objective of the group is to develop a new engine, a good addition to supervisor-Maxim will undoubtedly be his dual - Hamlet, because he is able to offer an entirely new idea, look at the problem from an unexpected direction, point away from the trivial solutions. Maxim will further move this work to creation of a concrete design, then organize construction of a prototype, "polish" the desired methods of operation. This is another example when partners effectively complement each other in mutual work.

Now imagine what happens when Maxim, as a worker on the assembly line, as his partner chooses someone of his dual type Hamlet? It's unlikely that Hamlet, who easily takes offense and then can deliberately leave, will be appropriate here. In this case, conflict is inevitable.

Thus, we see that the dualization of itself does not guarantee a good partnership, especially if one of the two partners found himself or herself having to work in the area where he is lacking (Esenin - as assertive salesman, Hamlet - as assembly line worker).

Chapter 2. Semi-dual Relations.

Just as in duality, in these relations support is given from the 1st channel to the 4th channel of both partners, but there is no compensation on the other two functions. Thus when semi-dual partners meet, make plans, talk over their matters, everything is fine, no worse than in dual relations. But when they try to implement their plans, it appears that there is same area where both are weak (albeit in different ways: e/i "-version" of functions of the third channel is different), according to this, on these functions partners cannot effectively help each other. Since there is no full compensation, at sufficiently close distance there may be certain mutual disappointment.

Consider these examples semi-dual relations.

Robespierre talks about his field of type Hamlet:

Robespierre - Hamlet (LII-EIE)

He is a musician, plays in an ensemble, never lacks in creative suggestions - if only to draw attention to himself. He can even stand on his head. Or, for example, will declare himself the author of some popular song. Later, however, he started writing songs himself. It should be noted that we always had topics for a conversation.

We discussed everything - from yesterday's trip to the movies to the nature of the universe. We came up with all sorts of projects and undertakings. Each of them we would discuss up to the minutest detail, but we have never been able to move forward in their implementation beyond making preparations.

In this story, these two friends are obviously attracted to each other's strong functions (extraverted ethics of Hamlet, introverted logic of Robespierre). However, practical implementation of any project is impossible without strong sensing support. For both, sensing functions are weak, thus their interaction and conversations, except for pleasant experience, do not achieve anything constructive.

Here is another story by a girl of type Don Quixote about living in a dorm room with a friend of type Gabin.

Don Quixote - Gabin (ILE-SLI)

I lived with Irina in the same room for nearly six months. I respect her a lot, and her opinion to me is very valuable. This is the only person with whom I could talk about all my joys and sorrows, being absolutely sure that she will understand me and calm me down. After having to spend three months apart, I was looking forward to when she will be back.

Finally she entered the room, looked at it, and said, "In general, one can live here ..." And I thought with relief that once again, finally, next to me will be my practical roommate, that she will not allow me to break away from reality and get lost in their own imaginative ideas.

This situation is simple and clear: the intuitive Don Quixote, of course, does not find it easy to resolve everyday problems, which are associated with living in a dormitory. Help of a sensing type Gabin in this is invaluable. Besides, Gabin, with vulnerable ethics is usually very attentive and listens to other people's outpouring of emotions, and in this he is a very desirable and comfortable partner.

Strictly speaking, intertype relations should be considered separately for each pair of types and in different situations: at work, at home, on vacation ... Each case represents mutual "work" of some specific functions, which is why the nature of communication may differ substantially in different conditions for the same pair of types.

Here is a story of types Napoleon and Esenin - girls who lived in the same dorm room.

Girl of type Esenin told this story:

Esenin - Napoleon (IEI-SEE)

She immediately attracted me with her sociability, helped me become closer to many people. She always lacked a listener, and I can spend hours listening to other people's stories. Soon we were spending all our free time together. At night, we could not sleep until we talked enough.

To her I go for any advice: which thing is better to buy and where it is most convenient to do so. She knows how to count money, and for me it evaporates without a trace, don't know where. She will gladly tell how it's best to arrange the furniture in a room, which curtains to hang. I can spend hours thinking about it, but will not do the actual task.

I am much better than her at seeing how her relations will develop with another guy she is seeing.

Sometimes we talk about it for hours. There were times when I had to predict a bleak ending of her next interest ... This, of course, was pointless to tell her, she never listens to me, and only after it happened exactly as the script I've described, she said with regret: "Pity I didn't listen to you back then!" But after a while all it happened all over again.

When I have exams, we had barely see one another. Usually I sit home alone and study for the exam. Carefully write notes. She runs around the dorm and collects notes for those who have already done the exam.

Here again we see support coming from partner's strong function: the ability of sensing type Napoleon to choose and buy appropriate things and Esenin's intuitive ability to predict the development of events. However, in those areas that require mutual work (in this case - preparing for exams), each acts alone by their own methods, without providing each other with any support.

Here is another example of semi-dual relations - Jack and Dostoevsky.

Jack tells the story:

Jack - Dostoevsky (LIE-EII)

Getting accepted to the university, we settled with him in the same room. At first, everything was great. We made plans for arranging our room. He offered: "I have paint for the floor and wallpaper. We'll immediately do the repairs." I really liked such enthusiasm and I replied in kind: "I have an electric stove and a frying pan. We'll buy a pot, a bowl and all the other kitchen stuff... for starters, we'll paint the floor and the window ... " – and so on.

The first two weeks of our life together were just great, we understood each other perfectly. We both loved the work, doing something useful. But then in the implementation of our plans we ran into some problems. He is a stubborn person and does not like to be told what to do.

One day we went to the grocery store and bought everything needed, and I also wanted to buy some apples. He grimaced and replied that he didn't want to, and the price is too high. I tried to persuade him – he stood his ground… I decided to act independently in this situation, went out and bought some apples. He must have felt offended, but didn't show it and didn't say a word, and yet I felt a spark of dislike run between us. He doesn't show his feelings, I find it difficult to restrain myself, I am used to being around many people. He is used to swallowing insults and separating himself with a wall of reserve, and I am a very straightforward person and believe that any misunderstanding it is better to resolve right away, not to leave around any hard feelings.

A new incident occurred during his duty in the kitchen. The whole week he prepared the same porridge. Finally, I asked him to make something else, but he replied that he doesn't want to change his plans for today. Well, no then no. I fried some potatoes for myself and then made some jokes, which upset him completely. Our relationship has become very strained. I was growing tired of this. Struggling to be tactful, I made an attempt to reconcile and find out what's wrong. He gladly responded to my suggestion. We had a good talk, and our frictions were smoothed out, but I'm not sure that there won't be problem again ...

Please note: here both partners have sensing functions in 3rd, vulnerable channel. It is clear that conflicts arise over practical issues: both respond inadequately to the situation. Dostoevsky, fearing that he won't have enough money to last the semester, doesn't want to spend extra on apples and cooks the cheapest food – porridge, thus unpleasantly affecting the sensory experiences of his roommate. And his roommate, in turn, being a decisive competitive type, strives to "win" in all their domestic issues and, thus, also hurts the vulnerable third function of his partner, who in principle cannot stand any coercion.

Chapter 3. Mirage Relations.

Here, just like in the case of duality, partners are able to help each other through the connections between 2nd and 3rd channels. However, there is no complementary connection between 1st and 4th channels. This means that it is easier for partner to maintain good relations in matters that are not very serious – for example, holiday and leisure time.

In these relations, it's not readily evident that the 4th channel of each partner is not receiving any support. Generally these relations are quite pleasant, but no more than that. The strong functions of partners are essentially the same, just of different orientation, thus the strong function of a partner is not appreciated (as in "I can do the same"), while the weak function is presented in an unfavorable light. Thus partners perceive each other as not exceptionally significant or authoritative, but charming and captivating, with whom it would be nice to spend some time with but not get into any important ventures. Exceptions are situations when mutual activity falls completely into the area of influence of 1st channel. In family life, these relations can be quite favorable, especially for those for whom the factor of psychological comfort is primary.

Let us refer to a few examples.

Don Quixote talks of his relations with Esenin:

Don Quixote - Esenin (ILE-IEI)

We first met a few months ago, but already know each other well and we're become much attached to one another. We have great rapport, many common aspirations and interests, though it is difficult to fully share his love of art, and for him - my addiction to systematic thinking.

We love to philosophize together, to talk about the meaning of life and love - and then laugh at our own discussions. We also work together productively. I am attracted to his philosophical mindset, his ability to offer support in difficult times - it helps me better understand my place in life. On the other hand, I think he likes me for my calm optimism, a kind of free thinking and abstract humor.

This passage illustrates well the support of partners for each other's weak functions: Esenin helps Don Quixote cope with emotional experiences, and Don Quixote helps him in return with logical analysis. Note that both of them at this point don't need to address any issues related to sensing: comfort, well-being, health - this part of the life is of little concern for them. As for the good results of their joint work - here, of course, comes into play effect of strong intuitive functions of different orientation, such that the partners are guaranteed to come to the best intuitive approach to any problem.

In general, it can be surmised that these people exist comfortably with each other. Comfort of life together was expressed well by a 50-year-old Don Quixote, who defined his relationship with his wife, IEI, in the following manner: "It's as if I'm walking in timeworn slippers" ... Now let us consider the following example of a relationship between types Stirlitz and Robespierre.

Shtirlits - Robespierre (LSE-LII)

My brother's type is Robespierre. We always liked being in each other's company, despite the fact that he was older than me by 11 years. Sometimes we fight, but our offenses never lasted more than a day.

My brother is very knowledgeable of history.

He likes to test me – intentionally, to expose my ignorance of some fact and then to criticize me for not disrespectful attitude towards humanities. Recently, he seriously tried to convince me of the existence of a direct link between the Trojan horse and the Roman Emperor Trajan, but I did not let him make fun of myself. I also like to catch him on his ignorance in areas of physics and mathematics, but in general, we have a good relationship. My parents have always said that we cannot exist without each other.

The above example confirms, as in the first case, that good understanding exists between partners, the ease of communication, the lack of a good reason for quarrels.

Here is another example of this type of relations:

Huxley - Balzac (IEE-ILI)

My mom is of type Balzac, and me – Huxley. Our relations with her can be considered good only on the surface. They are good, if we are relaxing together, or having fun at some event. When it comes to work, quarrels often break out, as if you're not talking with a close friend but with the "devil incarnate."

Our outlook on life is so different that there is no point of contact. She sees everything in the worst possible light, while I, on the contrary, I prefer to look at everything with humor and light irony. For her, the main thing is an accurately done job, but for me - a good mood.

In this case, we see that these relations are deprived not only comfort, but also lacking in most basic understanding, and this is in formal presence of the same "mirage." What is it? The problem lies in fundamentally different attitudes. Likely the mother belongs to a "heavier" variety of her type, this is the same kind of ILI which Gogol once depicted in a caricature of the famous character of "Dead Souls" with a pivotal phrase: "Our city only the judge is an honest person, and even he is a pig."

What to do with such a grouchy Balzac for a light, agile, cheerful Huxley? One cannot always take him or her out to parties and celebrations ... Incompatibility of the attitudes here is obvious. In fact, there is no support for the weak functions of the partner, but, conversely, pressure is exerted on them by stronger second functions ("For her, the main thing is a carefully done job (extroverted logic), and for me - a good mood (introverted ethics)").

Here is another example of the same relationship type:

My friend (type Huxley) is in many ways my complete opposite, but that doesn't hinder our frequent intimate conversations. She's much older than me and often speaks to me as a caring mother. Once I forgot to give her the book I promised to give and received the well deserved rebuke. Of course, I began to apologize and explain the reasons that prevented me from doing what I promised ... I didn't finish, as she immediately, laughing, interrupted me:

- Sophia, but I like you! You always say constructive things and to the point.

For me, her reaction was a pleasant surprise, I remembered a similar situation with another girl who resented my forgetfulness for a long time, and only after I've been apologizing for a long time she demonstratively and ceremoniously "forgave" me.

There are, however, situations where she should apologize before me, and she never does it directly, but she tries to restore the relations by further conversation in a confidential form that I accept with pleasure.

Here we have the same types, but they are completely comfortable in each other's company! What is different? The partners' roles have changed: the role of the senior mentor falls not to Balzac, but to Huxley - a cheerful enthusiast and an adept psychologist. In this situation, Huxley manages their communication and offers "rules" for their interaction.

The situation may have a third and a fourth possible outcomes, if certain functions of types are strengthened. This leads to a significant imbalance of energy of interaction, which can be accounted for only by analyzing the interaction while taking subtypes into account.

And yet another consideration. In mirage relations there is no communication of identical functions. Therefore, if partners do not feel support for their weak functions from each other, they usually cannot reach the agreement of their main life values.

Chapter 4. Contrary (Extinguishment) Relations.

Here we have four identical functions of different orientation in the same channels. And, at the same time - not a single communication channel on identical functions. This implies that for these partners, there isn't any significant sphere in which they would have same point of view.

Where one pays attention to external processes via his extroverted function, the other focuses on the internal states via his introverted function, and vice versa. As a result, it becomes difficult for these partners to understand each other and agree, except if they deliberately set out to look at the same issue from opposite points of view - this is sometimes beneficial in creative research.

So it happens that during a meeting, partners are attracted to each other by their "mystery." Due to this, hasty unions and marriages often arise between people who are exact opposites. Not surprisingly, the life of the spouses in these families can be fairly strained and difficult and often veers on the brink of breakup or divorce.

These relations, however, exist in different versions. Here is one of them.

Esenin talks about his relationship with Huxley:

Esenin - Huxley (IEI-IEE)

My younger sister and I have five years difference in age. Between us there are many quarrels. Sometimes I'm trying to teach her to live in my own manner, but she dislikes this. Recently, she told me a story, how she together with a classmate went to visit one guy. He put on some music, but the girls started asking him for drinks.

There was a can of strawberry jam on the table, but the girls turned it down and instead got out apple jam from the fridge. This story my sister told I really did not like. I began explaining to her that you cannot act like this at a party, this is very rude. She didn't hear me out, abruptly turned and walked away ... We often have conflicts because of the mess in the room. For me along it is difficult to maintain cleanliness, although I want it. If I start cleaning, I start to insist that my sister would also put her things in place. She doesn't like this. There were times when we could compromise, but most often this ended with a quarrel.

All week long I live in a dormitory, and on Sunday I come home. The moment I step into the apartment, a verbal barrage of all the news that my sister had gathered in the week falls on my head: her eyes are opened wide and brimming, her hands are gesticulating frantically ... I can't stand this pressure and leave our room to go to the kitchen to see mom. I feel guilty, and my sister, of course, feels offended. However, she soon forgets it, and runs to inform me of the next piece of new she had just remembered. Here I make an effort to listen very carefully, even if I've heard of these "news" a few times before. After that, our relations are ameliorated, until the next quarrel ...

Two main causes of the conflicts can be seen here. First, there is a huge difference in the levels of energy of the girls. One of the girls (Huxley) possesses a very strong temperament, which suppresses her dreamy and low-energy sister Esenin. Secondly - this pertains to cleaning the room - the business logic of Esenin is a vulnerable function that is in need of support, but she cannot find it, because it is also a weak function of Huxley! Restless Huxley, of course, is bored of cleaning and to accountability the youngest child in the family, it seems, is not accustomed.

Another example: two girls - Dreiser and Hugo.

Hugo tells the story:

Hugo - Dreiser (ESE-ESI)

She lost her algebra notebook on the eve of the exam. She was looking for it for a long time but couldn't find it. Then I laughed out loud, and suggested that, perhaps, this is the notebook that we have thrown out because it has gotten soaked in juice and sour cream when the rack fell down.

I do not know why, but I found it funny. She, on the other hand, started shouting and saying that we have no right to do this to her things.

Hugo, who is trying to get away from any stressful situations, prefers to see the world in festive and bright colors, finding good wherever is possible. Of course, he doesn't understand Dreiser with his exaggerated sense of responsibility, heightened fear of all the exams and tests, and the desire to perform any task as well as possible.

Another example: Don Quixote tells of his relationship with Balzac.

Don Quixote - Balzac (ILE-ILI)

We are sitting together and discussing some algebra problem. Everything seems to be alright. Then I'm starting to get into it, forget about the original problem, get excited if some interesting thoughts arise. Meanwhile she looks at me with a disapproving look and says:

- I wonder, why do you do nothing? Keep in mind, there is not much time left until the end of the semester!

Such comments unpleasantly jab me. Similar relations I've had with my brother of type Balzac. I understand that his advice is appropriate and timely, but it doesn't really reach me. I will still do everything in my own way, and those things in which he's right, I will somehow arrive at with my own wits. His confidence that nothing good will come out of me, I find very annoying. Of course, he does not say this, but I can feel his conviction. He will not be swayed by any of my successes. This doesn't give me a chance to assert myself, to gain confidence, and also don't provide me with emotional support, which for me is very important.

This example clearly illustrates inappropriate effects of the leading blocks of both partners. Don Quixote, supporter of everything new and unusual (extroverted intuition), ready to immediately create a new theory (introverted logic), finds no support from Balzac, who is waiting for the right time (introverted intuition) to accomplish a purely practical task (extroverted logic), and never misses an opportunity to chill any inappropriate, in his opinion, passion and zeal of a partner by his critical remarks.

Here is another story about relations between two girls of types Napoleon Dumas:

Napoleon - Dumas (SEE-SEI)

I will talk about my girlfriends. To me, they are both good girls, but when they got together, they would immediately begin to disagree - usually over nothing. Then both would begin to complain about each other.

- She is so self-satisfied! - complains Dumas. - Always thinks that she is right. She wants me to always do as she sees it fit, and if I say that it is better to do it differently – she just snorts. Yesterday she asked me to show her my solution to a homework problem. When I did, she looked up and said: "This is the wrong way to do it, you need to solve it in a different way." I explained to her that this problem can be solved in three ways, and this is the way I preferred to others. She keeps saying the same thing. Of course, I was angry, took my notebook and walked away, so she shouted in my back: "What a stupid solution you have there!"

Napoleon, on the other hand, complains about Dumas:

- Why is she such a sissy? She can't do anything sensibly. She is always too shy to ask for something, even if she's in the right. Yesterday, for example, there were doing some volunteering cleaning up our school. She was clean-washing the window sills. She finished, called the teacher to see her work, and the teacher said that, well, the sills were washed poorly. She began to wash again, and again the teacher did not accept it, and what do you think? She began to wash a third time! I would have long ago caused a scene...

The "sissy" objected to this:

- Why do you always to order me around? According to you, I was supposed to throw a scene and act indignant – so what would have come out of this? I would have spoiled the whole day for myself. And this way - my hands have not fallen off, and I feel great!

Here, of course, the sensing of experiences of Dumas, which inclines her towards gentle attitude of respect and comfort not only of body, but also inner comfort of the soul, encounters Napoleon, confident in her rightfulness, seeking, in spite of everything, to dominate and to be always right. Particularly heavy such relationships can be within the family, where it's not so easy to simply leave and "slam the door."

And yet there are cases when the relations of exact opposites are quite tolerable, even fruitful. Here is an example of this type of relationships among two scientists:

Jack - Robespierre (LIE-LII)

It is very convenient for us to work on the same problem. We look at it from opposite points of view, which provides us with almost absolute certainty that we won't miss out on anything. Still, I am aware of the fact that, except for joint projects, we just don't have anything to talk about, and the work itself goes surprisingly well.

I am usually the one making proposals (Jack). He thinks them over, and then either supports or fully rejects them.

Chapter 5. Mirror Relations.

In these relations, partners are quite similar - they are both ethical or logical types, both sensing or intuitive, but one is an extrovert, and the other - an introvert.

They also differ on the scale of rationality - irrationality. In their interaction, an active exchange of information occurs but on powerful functions.

That, which one speaks or thinks about, the other implements without further ado. They have much to learn from each other - though sometimes this leads to the temptation to teach and instruct the partner.

Here are three examples of relations between types Robespierre and Don Quixote (LII-ILE).

Author of the first story – Robespierre.

Robespierre - Don Quixote (LII-ILE)

One time we got a problem set from last year's math exam. Since in six months we will have to take it, we agreed, for the sake of training, to go through and solve all the problems. I immediately began to operate by means of mathematical analysis, and he started drawing some graphs.

After a while I started to graphically depict my results, and he began writing down formulas. When we finished the first task, and, naturally, arrived at the same answer, I asked him why he started solving the problem from the graphs, because it will still need a mathematical proof, would not it be better to immediately, without wasting time, solve the problem analytically? To this, I received the following response:

- Why do something so tedious when looking at the graphs of functions you could have quickly estimated what the answer will be.

It turns out that he first acts intuitively, and then rationalizes it (Ne-Ti), and I first develop a rational foundation and only then try to imagine the result (Ti-Ne).

Here's a scene from the life of students of the same types (ILE-LII):

Don Quixote and Robespierre share a dorm room. Outside the window, the weather is gloomy and windy, the sky is covered with clouds. Thunder can be heard in the distance. They are both doing math. Don Quixote:

- Finally a storm! The first of the year.

Robespierre did not respond, continuing to read "Higher Algebra" textbook. Lyrical enthusiasm of his roommate evoked no interest in him. After some time, the a discordant chorus could be heard on the streets: "There is a national war, a holy war!"

Robespierre, without turning, as if he's not talking to anyone, coldly states:

- No, this isn't a storm. These are fireworks.

Don Quixote is not happy with this unexpected revision of his poetic imagination.

- Fireworks have different sound – says he and looks out of the window - I do not see any fireworks explosions.

Robespierre, without moving from his seat, begins to argue:

- Today is May 9th, right? What time is it? It's 10:05pm. When do fireworks happen? Is this clear now?

Don Quixote falls silent, then angrily says:

- This is still a thunderstorm.

Robespierre delivers the last argument:

- Your "thunder" is rattling all too regularly, wouldn't you agree? And after 10 minutes it will end.

Don Quixote, muttering, "Ok, we'll see," with an offended look starts to read the textbook ...



Another example of the same relations (through the eyes of Don Quixote)

In our group, there is a guy of type Robespierre. He is very capable, but at the same time he is somewhat arrogant about it - as if the others don't matter. One day, the conversation turned to a problem which the guys found difficult. He quickly solved it and pronounced the answer. I, too, out of principle, undertook to solve it and obtained a different answer. He said that my answer is wrong, and then we began to argue. Then each of us wrote out our solution to the problem on the board, and I proved that I was right and not him. This greatly unsettled him. H e quieted down somewhat. Now he treats me with respect, and often explicitly asks my opinion on a given problem.

All of the above examples illustrate that these partners have common areas of interest, different approaches to solving problems, and a fairly easy way of reconciling conflicts: here, there is no pressuring by strong functions of one partner to the weak functions of another.

In the following example, partners are interacting via their strong functions.

The woman of type Dostoevsky tells the story:

Dostoevsky - Huxley (EII-IEE)

One day my friend Nina (type Huxley) was returning to her house from the lake. With us was the two year old son of the governess, Fedka. When we went down the path to the main road, Fedka started complaining, fell behind and started to point in the opposite direction, "Go there!"

We did a lot of coaxing, tries to lift him up and carry him. Nothing worked. He would run back a few steps, sit down and cry.

"How can we trick him?" - I began to wonder. And then, as if hearing my thoughts, Nina took Fedka by his hands and started walking in circles. Fedka went silent, the game was obviously to his liking. I, meanwhile, realizing what her plan was, quickly moved back up the road a few steps further than they were. When she put Fedka on his feet and his head stopped spinning, Nina asked him where do we go now. Fedka immediately found my eyes, turned around and confidently pointed in the opposite direction: "There!" Thus, we have successfully solved this problem.

Both women have ethics of relations as their strong function, so both are looking for a way to avoid coercing the child. But if Dostoevsky is only thinking about it on the 1st channel, then Huxley is acting on it on the 2nd channel.

Mirror relationships can be quite comfortable, if both partners are ethical types and, regardless of the circumstances, mutually seek harmonization. Here is an example of such a pair:

Dumas - Hugo (SEI-ESE)

We have known each other for 3 years. My type is Dumas, his is Hugo. I am with him same way he is with me, we find it hard to quarrel, but it also happens that we fight but immediately make up. One summer we sitting, drinking tea, and talking about how nice it would be to travel somewhere to relax, such as the Black Sea, but of course we didn't have the money.

- We need to get the money somewhere. - I said. - Let's gather mushrooms or blueberries, and then sell on market - he suggests. - No, we won't earn much on this ...

Next, I started making some very unrealistic proposal. I suddenly wanted to find a treasure or to become heir to a fortune ...

Among my impracticable proposals, I've also suggested selling ice cream on the beach. My friend jumped at the offer, while it wouldn't have come to my mind to realize it. But he was serious. We sold ice cream for entire month, and, imagine, made some very good money! And, of course, we traveled to the Black Sea. Actually, my friend has a valuable talent for implementing my ideas into life, moreover, ideas which I myself don't relate to seriously.

Here once again we see how one partner by his energy and his entrepreneurial spirit implements what the other partner can only mentally construct. This is what ensures the success of their partnership. But if both partners hold authority, then "mirroring" can result in the following relations:

Zhukov - Maxim (SLE-LSI)

My older brother is of type Maxim, and my type is Zhukov. The conflicts we have with him are rare, but this is because we both strive to avoid them. For example, my brother loves to teach me, give me advice on how to properly organize my life. I irritate him with my unpredictability.

In order not to annoy each other, we try to come into contact as little as possible. For example, we avoid even sitting at the table together, except on holidays. On other days, even if we're both hungry, first one goes to the kitchen and then the other.

Chapter 6. Conflict Relations.

In this case, the energy of the powerful 1st channel of each of the partners can fall onto the weak 3rd channel (PoLR) of the other. The relationship is not a pleasant one.

It is clear that in these relations, partners can sympathize with each other only when they are at a considerable distance. Each is attracted by the strong function of the other partner, in the sphere of which he is most vulnerable and unsure of himself. Upon approach, partners sooner or later feel the pressure on their PoLR and, to avoid discomfort, increase the distance of communication (these relations are symmetrical).

Several examples of conflict relations are provided below. Here is how a student of type Maxim perceives her dorm roommate of type Huxley.

Maxim - Huxley (LSI-IEE)

When she first appeared - the experience was most pleasant: she was very sociable, always treated us to something tasty she brought from home (she lives in the city, 30km from our work), often lighted up with some idea, at least, around her it was never boring.

But after prolonged interaction we began to have problems. For example, she never thought about that dishes should be cleaned from the table and washed on time.

She, much easier than I, captured the essence of all theorems and proofs. I was constantly annoyed by the ease with which she was able to do this.

Due to inability to predict what she will do in the next moment, it was generally very difficult to agree with her to anything beforehand. She used to come over on Sunday night, stay the night, and go back home Monday morning. But she very easily comes into contact with people, quickly lights up with new ideas ...

More recently, the following has transpired: she and her girlfriend, not wanting to live on a single fellowship, decided to take up tutoring – they hung up ads, were discussing something... A few days later I was "pleasantly" surprised to learn that they have decided to tutor students in our room a few times a week, and I was simply presented before the fait accompli. It did not occur to her to consult or ask for permission.

When tutoring started, it looked like this: "Today, the father of one of my students will be coming, but I have to pay a visit to the town, so could you look to it?" I was so taken aback that I, frankly, couldn't find words to object to her...

Let's see which functions of Maxim are affected by contact with Huxley. First of all, Maxim is annoyed by inconsistency, lack of thoughtfulness (which is on the verge of irresponsibility) in actions of Huxley. Here, the strong function of Maxim (introverted logic) is affected. Maxim wants partner's actions to be reasonable, or at least fit into the framework of common sense.

Furthermore, the ease with which Huxley intuitively resolves her matters, without, it would seem, putting in the necessary effort, is wounding to Maxim. His own intuition is in vulnerable function and is too weak to grant such ease. But this is not all. The sensing of Maxim also suffers; his preference for order and cleanliness, which Huxley can so easily upsets without even noticing (will she really think of such things as washing dishes?).

In turn, for Huxley, the boring and over-organized, from her point of view, lifestyle of her roommate Maxim is hardly pleasant. It is possible that spontaneous trips back home after spending only one night in the college housing is a natural attempt to spend as little time as possible side-by-side with her "exacting" roommate.

We see, therefore, that in conflict relations, all three defining functions of partners "suffer" - I, II and III. However, the nature of perceived discomfort in all three cases is different. Given that in the first two functions people are usually confident, that these areas contain their core values and attitudes, the invasion of this area by their conflictor, who uses other "yardsticks" that violate these values and attitudes, causes resentment, protest, indignation. All of this is supported by the absolute certainty of being right, "How can he do that, it's a disgrace!" When the pressure is applied to PoLR, the person feels something akin to own inferiority near his conflict partner, and this is experienced particularly painfully.

Let us turn to another example: mother (type Dumas) and son (type Jack).

Dumas - Jack (SEI-LIE)

It's not that my older brother and my mother get along poorly with each other. But they often have conflicts that appear out of the blue. I think my mother suffers more - my brother also feels this, but can't do anything about it, somehow it doesn't work.

Without even realizing it, he often put her into a logical impasse by pragmatic remarks. In response, she suddenly explodes, and everything for her is no longer right. And my brother continues to maintain his position.

This summer, we were posting up wallpaper. My brother and I were engaged in the technical side (Te - strong function of Jack) and mother – in the artistic side (Si - strong function of Dumas). She asked us to glue the wallpaper so and so, to which my brother replied that so and so is exactly how it won't work, and supported his argument. My mother, however, felt that he simply doesn't want to do anything, and told him this, adding that if he posted the wallpaper the way he wanted, then it would be utterly hideous. (Note: Here, mother and son are exchanging "blows" through their strong functions on PoLR functions of each other.) This argument ended with sudden explosion - my mother left, saying: "Do as you want!"

After this, my brother did some measurements, drafted a few sketches, then gave me his instructions and started to work. Together, we created a very complicated pattern, and eventually did everything exactly as my mother said. Although my brother felt that he was wrong, he did not apologize, considering that he is excused by a job well done.

The following two examples: relations between Esenin and Stirlitz.

Girl of type Esenin tells about her brother:

Esenin - Stirlitz (IEI-LSE)

In everything, my brother and I are different kinds of people. First, we have a completely different rhythm of life. I, being tired from the day, can relax in the evening, and closer to night pull myself together and sit down to do homework. My brother, in contrast, can be studying all day, but by 11 o'clock in the evening he has to go to bed.

If he returns from a math competition or after finishing an exam, he is usually in a good mood and then makes me solve everything that he has solved so that I could appreciate his abilities. The same thing happens with crossword puzzles.

Often I cannot stand this pressure (on extroverted logic), because I cannot tolerate such persistence with which he keeps track of my actions: did I find a solution or not, did I choose the correct course, and so on.

But at the same time, I know how to use his abilities and very simply can inspire him to solve a problem which I don't understand: it's enough to tell him that I can't manage. Without additional words, he sets to work and soon "proves" me wrong. The same thing happens with other activities – he just has to play his part.

Relations of same types, from the point of view of a young Stirlitz:

I have a friend of type Esenin, and there is a feeling that we were created just to get on each other's nerves. This is what happened recently: my girlfriend likes to go to the movies, hanging out, etc., as long as she's not sitting at home bored. This happened on Friday when we went for a walk.

- Let's go to the movies on Sunday ... - She says.

- I can't. I have an exam on Tuesday, will have to spend Sunday preparing for it, - I replied.

She started sulking. We walked in silence. To put an end to this awkward silence, I said:

- Last night I finished reading a book ...

Here she interrupts me mid-sentence:

- Yeah, so, for reading books you have time, and to go to the movies with me – no.



Here came my turn to pout. I was reviewing lecture materials until 4am, and then until 5am I finished reading this wretched book that I couldn't finish the entire week.

It is clear that in both cases relations are very strained. Stirlitz, who constantly strictly watches to ensure that no one shirks their responsibilities, of course, constantly affect the PoLR of Esenin. What would happen if her brother was her dual - Zhukov? Zhukov and Esenin are both irrational types with similar rhythms of life. It's doubtful that energetic and strong-willed Zhukov would force his less active sister, who often breaks out in tears, to constantly solve some problems or do anything else. As a rule, in dual family Zhukov - Esenin relations are formed as follows:

Recently Helen has gotten married, and it would seem that her husband is a completely different person from her, but in him she has found real support, that's for sure. Now, when I came to see them, I see the following picture: she is sitting with a book and reading, and her husband is asking her, "Helen, is everything alright? What do you think? "As far as I can determine, he is of type Zhukov. Frankly, in a different, non-family atmosphere you'd never hear anything like this from him, but him and Lena are just the perfect couple, even though before we all wondered how such two different people can even get along!

Now imagine that in the second story instead of type Esenin we were dealing with type Dostoevsky, dual of Stirlitz. First, she would be just as diligent and organization of Stirlitz would help her finish her homework on time, which would evoke in her appreciation and sense of satisfaction. His desire to study on Sunday she would have perceived with understanding and respectfulness; she would also do something on a weekend. Her desire for self-improvement would be reinforced here, and both would have remained satisfied with each other.

If conflicting parties have the opportunity to increase the distance of communication, then, as mentioned above, after the exchange of "blows" to their PoLR functions, they distance. But if, for example, they are married, it is not so easy to do, and the relationship can become unbearable.

Wife of type Napoleon tells this story:

Napoleon - Robespierre (SEE-LII)

Type of my husband is Robespierre. Before the wedding, we knew each other for only three months. He tried to be kind and caring, I was attracted to his intelligence, good judgment, calmness. The first conflict situation arose one day before the wedding, and right after the wedding our relationship completely deteriorated, which became especially apparent after the birth of our child. Whatever I say to him, he finds annoying. It is as if he's doing everything that makes me angry. One time he was repeating the same phrase in English for an hour. He stopped only when I became hysterical. Constantly jabs me, "You are so overweight and unpleasant" and I'm constantly yelling at him: "Are not you ashamed, that you haven't lifted a finger at home!" and in the same manner. If I cry, he gets enormous pleasure from it. My husband and I have completely opposite attitudes to everything. There is a constant feeling of an impending explosion. We are even able to strike each other. At times it seems that relations are improving, but then again at some unexpected moment one will hurt the other.

Thus, if two socionics conflicting types have met, should one go up to them and tell them, "Stay away from each other, conflict is inevitable between you" (this is sometimes what socionics beginners will do, of course, only out of good intentions)?

Acquainted with one more example of the conflict relations psycho Dostoevsky - Zhukov.

Woman of type Dostoevsky tells this story:

Dostoevsky - Zhukov (EII-SLE)

About 20 years ago, together with V. we went to a dance club, which was recently organized. She couldn't help herself drawing attention by her gorgeous figure and commanding style, which immediately made her one of the main figures of the club.

In the early years of our friendship, I was very annoyed at her direct, peremptory tone which left no room for any objections, and I tried to stay away from her (Dostoevsky feels strong-willed pressure of Zhukov). Later V. supported certain elitism within our club, not allowing certain people to join, who, in her view, were not on the same level as the rest of us. Her position caused my outrage. (Dostoevsky, with his strong ethics generally believes that all people are worthy of attention and respect.)

But a few years later, I discovered that the life of the club, of which we are all very proud of, really hinges on activity of V. Constant contacts with the administration concerning leasing stipulations, contracts with teachers, financing matters – she was "pulling" all it, and not people like me, who just enjoy the fruits of another's labor and can only feel indignation (usually in the shower). If I had to take up such responsibilities, our club would have soon collapsed.

In recent years, V. is one of my closest friends. Her constant realism and optimism save me from the oppressive mood slumps that I am given to, sometimes to the point of despair. In such situations, she tells me a story about one of her friends, from which I learn that people live in much more difficult situations than mine.

- Do not anger God - she likes to say – anyone could wish to have you problems!

After such "pumping" I part with her feeling almost happy - all my problems transform into a triviality.

However, in relation to V., I have developed a certain strategy: in anything that we do together, I completely obey her, although I understand that this is only possible for relatively short periods of our meetings; to constantly live like this for me would be impossible.

As you can see, even people in conflict relations can, at a certain distance, communicate and be friends (remember the girl-Esenin who learned to beneficially apply logical abilities of her brother Stirlitz). Obviously, conflictors by their strong functions can not only put pressure on each other's PoLR, but also complement and help each other. But this requires a certain balanced and well thought out method of interaction.

Chapter 7 and 8. Supervision (Audit) Relations.

In these relations, the functions of partners are arranged such that the 1st, strongest function of one partner (called the Supervisor) exerts pressure on other PoLR of the other partner (called the Supervisee). In turn, the Supervisee does not have direct access to the weak function of the Supervisor.

A notable quality of these relations is their asymmetry, that the Supervisor, without feeling the pressure himself, may approach dangerously closely to the Supervisee. He would not have dared to approach if these were relations of conflict, where the danger is mutual.

All 16 types can be connected in such a way that each is a Supervisor in relations to one type and the Supervised in relations to another type. Thus we obtain four "rings of supervision" comprised of four types each:

Don Quixote -> Maxim -> Napoleon -> Dostoevsky -> Don Quixote;

Dumas -> Hamlet -> Balzac -> Stirlitz -> Dumas;

Robespierre -> Huxley -> Dreiser -> Zhukov -> Robespierre;

Hugo -> Gabin -> Jack -> Yesenin -> Hugo.



In principle, each person inherently speaks out on the issues that are of his primary focus, especially, if these issues fall into the sphere of his strongest function. Those around him may express their interest or indifference - depending on their level of interest. Let us suppose that in the vicinity of this person was his Supervisee ... and here it turns out that to any seemingly harmless remark this person is extremely sensitive, take things too close to his heart, because the pressure is exerted on his vulnerable 3rd channel.

Here is an example of the audit: ILE (Don Quixote) talks about his relations with EII (Dostoevsky):

Don Quixote - Dostoevsky (ILE-EII)

For some reason I always find it difficult to communicate with him: when I say something, he goes so silent that I feel he'll take offense at any moment. So I have to keep myself within certain limits. First, I feel uncomfortable with this, then I try to entertain and distract him, but meanwhile I'm feeling like a cheap clown. I try to shake him up - and all because he is silent and this silence is very painful for me. It seems like his thought process is very slow, and my thoughts are like fleas jumping around. He, on the other hand, cannot quickly switch, so when I try to shake him up, he responds by retreating into himself even further. In the end, I perceive this prolonged silence as a reproach, as a sign of my own tactlessness.

What is a textbook example of supervision relations! Note that on the surface it seems like nothing is happening, one partner is talking, and another, being unable to keep up after the thoughts his companion, keeps silent, but that silence is perceived by Supervisee as a reproach and accusations in tactlessness, because introverted ethics which is in Dostoevsky's 1st leading channel for Don Quixote is a painful, vulnerable function. Someone else would have reacted calmly to the fact that the partner is slowly thinking over what he is hearing, but the Supervisee immediately begins to worry - he inadequately interprets this situation, that his behavior seems tactless to his conversation partner.

With regard to the Supervisor, for him these relations are ultimately also unpleasant, but in a different way: he cannot understand why this is happening: anything he tells to the Supervisee results in hurt feelings, frustration, anger or unexpected aggression. The Supervisor feels that his partner is too short-tempered, too irritable, closes off at the slightest things, around him it is necessary "to tiptoe" all the time ...

- I tell him this without any intention to hurt or offend! – exclaims the Supervisor - Why do I get such a reaction?

Let us refer to some examples. Here is a situation where Stirlitz is in role of Supervisee:

Balzac - Stirlitz (ILI-LSE)

During the preparation for the exams she (Stirlitz) on the very first day sits down to study, and I (Balzac), as usual, leave and spend some time "building up" and preparing. After a day or two, I start to feel that it's time to study and sit down with my notes. Understanding the general idea of the proof, I set the theory aside without going into details - I don't want to spend too much time on it and leave it for later, to scrupulously study on a fresh head. Therefore the rate at which I'm preparing for the exams is slightly higher than hers; in two or three days I catch up, and we start studying the same material. Here, suddenly conflicts arise. Grasping the main idea, I try to explain it to her, but for some reason she suddenly takes offense and turns away from me. After a short break, I humbly ask if she understood this and that. She replies that yes, of course, she understood, and attempts to explain it to me. I cannot really comprehend her explanation: it doesn't contain a clearly expressed idea of proof. Then I, in turn, try to explain to her where she is experiencing fundamental difficulties. Nothing good results out of this: she gets offended again ...

In the following example Stirlitz, in turn, revises Dumas:

Stirlitz - Dumas (LSE-SEI)

I always wanted to find out my sister's type because there were very strong suspicions that our relations in intertype sense is unfavorable. My type is Stirlitz. As close relatives we, of course, love each other, but we often quarrel. It comes to this that I, a 20-year-old, resort to using physical force against her, the 10-year-old. I'm simply maddened by some of her comments ... "How does this insect dare?" Of course, I tell her all that I think about her. But at some point, I realized that as an older brother, I can and must do something to make our relationship change for the better.

I started with finding out her type. Testing her, I've found out that her type is Dumas, and that she is my Supervisee! Then I realized what the issue was: I was roughly crushing her with my own logic. Indeed, all our quarrels follow one and the same scenario: I voice a reprimand, she makes faces in response, I don't like it, I tell her that she is so and so, doesn't do this or that ... She tries to object, but I am already "on the track" and cannot stop myself. I explain to her why she is so bad, tell her exactly what is "wrong" with her, and in the end I conclude that she is - well, just a little monster! As a result of my "disciplining" she is crying, and I'm angry and leave for the kitchen. Subconsciously, I feel that I am wrong, but I cannot do anything with myself, and reassure myself that logically speaking, I stated everything reasonably and fairly.

I must say that socionics gave me a new perspective on our relationship. Recently, we have had few quarrels, because I always remember that my form of logic is my sister's weak point, and trying to persuade her logically is a waste of my time and nerves.

Let us move a little further along the "ring of supervision" where Dumas is in role of Supervisor (his Supervisee - Hamlet); the storyteller is a girl of type Huxley:

Dumas - Hamlet (SEI-EIE)

My friend of type Dumas has a boyfriend of type Hamlet. They met a year ago and it seems to me that they could be good friends, but this is hindered by excessive vulnerability of Hamlet. My friend readily sees the shortcomings of her boyfriend and often points them out, of course, being guided by the best motives. He, on the other hand, reacts very painfully upon hearing such comments about his person, behaves out of control, becomes hysterical - there are frequent door slammings and insulting remarks. It seems a little odd to me that when I make very similar comments, he takes them calmly without overreacting, and listens to them, though sometimes not considering them in depth.

At the same time, he is very sensitive about his looks and exactly on this theme he seeks advice from my friend, completely trusting her and unquestioningly following this advice.

Conflicts also arise because the extravagant artistry of her boyfriend to her seems too factitious and unnecessary. In his behavior she notices excesses, pathos, artificiality. But in those cases, when they visit various public places, his appeal to the audience and sociability are not annoying to her, and seem quite appropriate and natural, but even here she is able to pull him back, pointing to the fact that he has no sense of measure.

And now here is a story of how Hamlet himself is supervising his friend of type Balzac:

Hamlet - Balzac (EIE-ILI)

In the summer I and my friend (Balzac) attended a labor camp for collecting fruits on farms. Common job and rest breaks brought us closer together and we became friends. Our relationship was supported by common interests related to computers, and a common goal - admission to the university. And now that goal is achieved: we are students. Then it turned out that neither of us had time left for our common hobby. Here started all of our troubles. One time we were sitting in class. I was distracted by someone. To catch up, I asked him to show me his notes from beginning of class. He showed them to me, but I found his handwriting to be illegible. I needed time to read them carefully and felt like I was starting to interfere. Finally, he took away the lecture notes and promised to decipher them later. I jokingly called him "greedy" and asked him to do it as soon as possible. To this he replied dryly: "This is my notebook, and I'll do with it as I want," - probably he took offense at my comments about his greediness. My response was: "Sure, do as you wish," - and then I immediately asked him to return the book that I gave him a few days ago. After this, we did not talk for a while, but then I took a step towards reconciliation. Still, there remained a sense of dissatisfaction with each other between us since this incident.

Relationship of this kind continues to the present day - according to the law of oscillation: first getting worse, then improving. There are moments of very good understanding and even support. So we continue to be friends, and in spite of the fact that we have hated arguments, I still consider him to be one of my closest friends.

In this story, two different areas of communication manifest very clearly: when partners are interacting through their strong functions (introverted intuition), that are related to making plans, dreaming, setting future goals, their relationship is good. If the author of the story acts on his leading function (extroverted ethics), this clearly irritates his friend, who has the same function is located in PoLR. The result is almost inevitable quarrels.

Thus, we ran the full circle. And what will happen if representatives of these four sociotypes find themselves in the same team and will have to work in the same room? All of their work time will be devoted to sorting out their relations.

This, of course, in no way implies they are "bad people." It must be understood that each person, by himself or herself, is not an instigator of quarrels, is not a villain or a monster. Everyone, as a rule, strives to be on good terms. However, if Supervisor and Supervisee have to interact extensively, the conflicts will occur sooner or later.

Relations of supervision, however, are not always so clear-cut. It all depends, again, on which functions the partners are interacting.

Below are three examples of the relations between the Supervisor of type Don Quixote and Supervisee of type Maxim. In the first and the second story, the narrator is Don Quixote; the third one is on behalf of an outside observer.

Don Quixote - Maxim (ILE-LSI)

First story: One time we were working together on some problems in physics: we wanted to take part in a competition. We started on a problem in which it was necessary to conduct a thought experiment and get the answer in numerical form. He began to solve by direct advance, "head on" (introverted logic) and could not get the right result. I first attempted to "feel" the whole system. I practically guessed the answer (extroverted intuition) - and turned out to be the right one. My friend, for some reason, became very upset. Further, there were problems of the same type. Going over them for me was quite boring, and I could not bring myself to help him in solving them, though in a different situation I would have agreed. He grew so angry with me that he then did not speak to me for two years. I was very surprised by this reaction.

Second story: Many times I have heard from him, that, well, you need to plan everything. In part, I agree with him - sometimes you have to plan, but not every minute!

One time I come back home at about 2pm. He is sitting, clearly puzzled by something. What's the matter? It turned out he had planned out his entire work day and was supposed to have lunch at 1:30pm, but there was some accident at the cafeteria and now it only opens at 3:00pm. The poor fellow was really confused and trying to re-plan everything at the moment when I arrived, and was just writing down the minutes on a piece of paper. I indeed felt a bit sorry for him, although I was entertained by this story.

He went to bed as usual, at 10:30pm (here no accident could have baffled his plan), and I went to another room so I would not interfere. Very quietly, trying not to wake him, I came back at midnight and went to lie down. Falling asleep, I heard him tossing and turning in his bed: this means that for 1.5 hours he could not sleep, but still tried to keep his regime!

All that night there were some noises, knocking, shuffling of feet. And in the morning I discovered that he had dropped the bed on the floor and is sleeping on the floor. He explained that "the grid is stretched unevenly and he cannot sleep on it." Interestingly, he slept in the same bed for six weeks and everything was fine ... Without thinking, I offer him my bed, but he did not agree, because my spot "is bad, right in front of the door." I said: "If you want, let's move the beds to switch them around." He was a little surprised but did not reject this suggestion, and was rather happy with it. In his place, I would not have accepted such a proposal, because it would mean that the other will suffer all the inconvenience that I've suffered. All day I was thinking about it, assuming that he will think this over thoroughly and refuse to switch the beds...

In the evening he comes back home and brings a couple boards for the bed. I inwardly rejoice: aha, so he's going to work on dealing with his bed problem. But then he says to me: "Ok, let's move the beds." - "Excuse me, but did you not bring the boards to put on your bed? Why change now?" He gets into a pose: "These boards were picked especially for a bed such as yours, well, do you agree to exchange or not?" This was said in such a tone as if I owed him a hundred dollars. Without further discussions, we moved the beds ...

We also have frequent conflicts over cleaning up the room: "There is dust on the floor," - he makes a "subtle" hint. Well, really, maybe I don't have eyes. I can see for myself that it is dirty. But this doesn't mean that I should immediately take off and run to wash the floor? When I will be in the right mood, then I'll wash it, but my roommate's main principle is: "Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today!" Absolutely idiotic principle, I will know exactly when and what I should do.

Third story: Young woman of type Don Quixote works for a research institute. One of her students is of type Maxim. From the very beginning, she showed good attitude towards him, was attentive and tactful - he was also considerate and helpful in relation to her. Later, he became a graduate research student, then an employee of the same laboratory. His relations with his former professor remain polite and respectful. They also retain the same distance: always appropriate young man had never acted carelessly or rudely, which Don Quixote cannot tolerate.

Over the years, he has succeeded in work and attained a higher position than her former adviser. Here is her verbal recount of him:

- In spite of his high position, he does treat me differently – he is still considerate and does not forget that I'm his senior. It happens that he will assign me a task, and I still do things in my own way, and he does not protest but puts up with this situation ... There is possibly no other person with whom I could work so well!

Thus, we have three cases of Supervision relations between the same sociotypes. What do they have in common? At a first glance – nothing. In the first case, we have a textbook version of Supervision: Maxim feels very uncomfortable on situations involving intuition of possibilities (extraverted intuition), which is the most powerful function of Don Quixote. For Maxim it is difficult to understand how it is possible to cursorily "foresee" the result without doing the follow-through calculations. He is upset with the ease with which his friend is able to do it. For him this situation seems unfair.

In the second example, the situation is reversed. Really, who is revising whom in this case? After all, in this living situation it is Don Quixote who is feeling the pressure coming from strong functions of Maxim (Ti-Se): rigorous daily schedule, claim to the best bed and the best place in the room. What makes Maxim subject his roommate to such coercion? Perhaps, it's not only his strong functions to blame, but also his upbringing – he makes an impression of a person who is not very empathetic and not very bright. His roommate, apparently, is more generous, more intelligent and capable of compromise ... The result: the Supervisee exerts pressure on the Supervisor and is clearly succeeding in this.

Finally, the third example is ideal. Both partners demonstrate the highest possible level of relations. As a result, there is nothing left of notorious "Supervision", especially since both have the ability to communicate via strong function (introverted logic), that is, to conduct a reasonable dialogue. The differences in their social position and age are honored, which allows each of them to do their job meanwhile respecting the methods of the other partner without interfering.

Generally speaking, the closer the distance in this relationship – the more dangerous the situation. This is especially true of family relations where communication inevitably occurs at very close ranges. All functions are involved in the process of communication here, thus Supervision is often quite severe. If it is impossible to discontinue this kind of communication, the result may be a psychological illness (most often for the Supervisee). The author is aware of one family that is doing relatively well, where the wife is the Supervisee (husband's type is Maxim, her type is Napoleon), where partners have learned to get along with each other. After studying socionics and realizing the cause of their conflicts, they organized their lives in such a way that they could periodically "rest" from each other: the husband found a job that involved travel and every three months he departs for a trip. Even with such arrangement, his wife still feels rather heavy pressuring from her husband, but the topic of divorce in this family has not been discussed.

Chapter 9. Identical Relations.

Here partners are of the same socionics type. They have identical functions in their information channels. Therefore, information is easily transmitted from one partner to another.

Such relations are extremely productive in teacher-student type of interaction: no one can teach as intelligibly and learn as quickly as an identical. However, as soon as their knowledge equalizes, their interest in one another is lowered, since they cannot tell anything new to each other. They have the same reaction to the same stimuli. Both are strong and weak in the same areas, so that they cannot expect support from each other in the areas of their weak functions. It even happens that they have nothing to talk about: what one is thinking becomes voiced by the other.

If a married couple is in dual relations, and the child inherits the type of one of the parents, these are extremely favorable conditions for the child's development. As there can be no better teacher than an identical, there can be no better guardian than a dual: from the side of the dual support is always felt, dual loves you without asking for anything in return, just for "who you are". Unfortunately, in many families parenting is done only by one parent. In this case, if the parent's type is identical to that of the child, he teaches the child well, but the child does not feel a sense of security and support for the weak functions. The child then has to become self-sufficient quickly; he may develop into a cold personality, with rigid structural attitudes, and exaggerated desire for prestige both at work and at home. If, however, he is brought up by his dual, the child feels supported from early years, grows used to being loved "for who he is" without making any effort, but then he grow up poorly adapted to handle difficult situations, since he is not in the habit of at least to some extent compensating for his weak functions, as the burden was previously alleviated by his dual parent.

For many children of school age, compatibility with their teacher, who teaches all the subjects at the primary level, may be decisive for many years of future studies. If the student is identical of the teacher, he readily understands him or her, studies well and, of course, receives high marks. For those children whose socionics type is not very compatible with the type of the teacher, studying is difficult. Such a child usually falls behind in studies and can even develop insecurity in own abilities.

Les us consider a few examples of identical relations. A girl of type Stirlitz told this story:

Stirlitz - Stirlitz (LSE-LSE)

Since childhood, I enjoyed my father's explanations because everything that he would say I understood perfectly. He was the one who taught me how to read and write when I was 5 years old. During school years, father often helped me to solve puzzles. If I didn't understand some material at school, Dad could explain it to me in such a way that everything became accessible and easy to understand, which left me wondering how was it that I previously didn't understand?

I've always had great rapport with my Dad. I could tell him about various problems and always received from him very helpful advice. However, there was a period in our lives when we conflicted over nothing and haven't spoken for days. In addition, each sincerely believed that the other was to blame. If it wasn't for my mother, I do not know how we could have reconciled. Mom hates it when we quarrel. She turns to one then another trying to mitigate our conflict. She would tell me this:

- You are future wife and mother, and you must learn to give in.

I would resist for a long time, but when I very much wanted to share something with my dad, despite everything, I went and talked to him, to which my father responded with pleasure, for he was also tired of our silence. But it was my mother who most of all rejoiced at our reconciliation.

Interestingly, when my mother was away traveling, my dad and I became inseparable friends – we never had any quarrels. We both loved puzzle games where one has to think of something, after analyzing the situation choose the best course.

Therefore, we have always found something to occupy with when left alone.

Here is another story of identicals Esenins:

Esenin - Esenin (IEI-IEI)

It very often it happens that we don't want to talk about serious topics, discuss business, do something that is necessary, with my friends of type Esenin - it turns out that it's simply nice to spend time with them. We were drawn to each other; we want to be together and do nothing. When a close friend of mine leaves for the weekend, I very much miss him and always think of him. When he returns, we both rejoice, though, if we spend much time together, it becomes boring, there is almost nothing to talk about ... But it is still nice to be close to each other.

When I seriously think about the future, it makes me uncomfortable, because I strongly attached to my friends - without them I cannot and don't want to do anything. How will my life pan out?

The above two stories about a father and daughter of type Stirlitz and friends of type Esenin illustrate how communication over strong functions has the result of amplifying them. Stirlitz is an active type. In the first story, this is reflected in the fact that both daughter and her father like to solve logical problems in their spare time.

Low energy idealistic Esenin with friends-identicals, on the contrary, is even further immersed in his imagination and inaction. Moreover, in such company the pastime gets supported by a sufficient justification: "I am no worse than others". In such combinations of types, there is no incentive to work on oneself and little that promotes personal growth.

Next is a story about the relations of two representatives of type Zhukov:

Zhukov - Zhukov (SLE-SLE)

I wouldn't say that our relations are especially involved - neither I nor he strive towards this. Sometimes we play cards together, but often conflicts develop. They follow the same scenario: each time it seems to him that someone is infringing on his interests – his partner is cheating or the opposing team is not playing by the rules – and he cannot be persuaded otherwise. Then I need to find a compromise, however, I, just like him, just don't have sufficient tolerance. But our conflicts usually don't last very long, because I'm rarely truly take offense.

In identical relations, reliance on the strong functions is particularly pronounced. What should happen if both partners have volitional sensing as first function (this is the case in the example above)? Obviously, these types can interact well only if these is division of their areas of influence. For example, in one family where both husband and wife are of type SEE, the husband realizes his leadership skills on the job, and his wife commands in the house. When their interests overlap, conflicts begin. However, there are also cases where both types can direct their efforts towards achieving the same goal or working on the same project – in this case, their combined energy and directed efforts can be unbeatable.

Next example – relations between friends of type Hamlet:

Hamlet - Hamlet (EIE-EIE)

When they met each other, they immediately found a common language. Then they became inseparable friends. Both of them like to talk about different topics. They are interested in very many areas - politics, economics, history, philosophy ... Both easily fall in love, and in general they have found in each other many similar traits, even their birthdays have coincided. All was well, but recently one of them started saying that he was tired of the other, and sometimes wants to be alone ... This is understandable. After such a prolonged dialogue they have nothing to talk about: what is in the thoughts of one, is already in words of another.

This story reflects the specificity of interaction of "strong" ethical functions. Of course, the dialogue of two representatives of type Hamlet can be quite favorable only in the early stages and at some distance, since they both love to be the center of attention, both need an audience, and both are very vulnerable. In particular, it would difficult to get along in the same family – each will "pull the blanket" over to himself.

The author can remember one family where the mother and son were both of type Hamlet – at some point the tensions have reached such proportions that the son, trying to distance himself from his family and contact with his mother, have put locks on all their rooms and is now looking for opportunities to buy a separate condo for his elderly mother, despite the fact that they have only recently moved in together.

Below are two examples of identical relations between young people of type Huxley:

Huxley - Huxley (IEE-IEE)

First story: The relations between two IEE students.

My friend simply loves different adventures, fun and risky activities. In 7th grade she made a wonderful friend of the same type, who is also ready to arduously paint life into wonderful colors. They became best friends very soon – one understood the other from half word, from single glance, from a barely noticeable gesture.

One day they were walking to school together. Suddenly, the girl notices on the road a shaggy little puppy. She exclaims with amusement and rushes to pet it: - Poor, homeless dog! You're so adorable! You must be hungry? - Lets take him home – suggests her friend – he is indeed very cute looking ...

But it's not so simple: because there are still 4 lessons at school ahead, and a dog might run away or someone else will take it, and if they take it home they will be late for lessons.

It is not known who was the originator of this idea, but the result was that the girl put her books into the bag of her friend, and the puppy was put in place of textbooks. Thus they came to class with a dog. At first all was well, the puppy was sleeping peacefully, but during the break he was awakened by the noise in the classroom, and started whining softly.

The entire next lesson, they both held the dog on their hands, but still they did not manage to avoiding the obvious outcome of this story: the puppy started barking - the teacher with surprise looked at the class. The friends tried hard not to laugh at the same time to subdue the dog. But they couldn't do either. The puppy jumped on the floor and filled the classroom with sounds of a triumphant bark, and the troublemakers buried their faces in their desks, no longer being able to hold back their laughter.

They escaped punishment: they were lucky because the canine hero of this story immediately won over the hearts of teachers, when all three were taken to the principle.

Second story: Two students of type IEE.

I have two friends, a girl and a guy. On the faces of both there is always a shining smile – it seems like they enjoy the whole world and everyone in it. Each of them is able to flirt with everyone and no one in particular. Each with his sad look can intrigue others and within a minute suddenly switch back to playfulness and cheerfulness. When they meet together, they start with small jabs. Sitting across and other, they try to insult one another in the most sophisticated ways possible. Once I overheard their conversation: he referred to her as a one-dimensional point, and to himself – as a multidimensional space. Further, by means of complex reasoning and theorems he attempted to prove the insignificance of her "single point" existence. As a reward, he was hit on the head with a paper folder, before which he was promised that all his multidimensionality will get shaken out of him, and then they both laughed like little kids, although a moment ago they might have been mortal enemies.

From these two examples we see that Huxley-identicals are also inclined to combine their strong functions. Identity relationship can be good for a family when both partners are of sensing types. In this case, both will be interested in managing the household. There are several examples of wonderful couples in which both spouses are of types Dreiser, Gabin or Stirlitz.

For intuitive types this is more difficult - neither of them has interest in the prosaic, but alas, necessary household chores. They are much more interesting in talking and discussing some new information or interesting problems. Relations of this kind are more likely to be productive at work, especially if each has an interest in the field of knowledge of another. Two representatives of type Dostoevsky can sufficiently enrich each other in the related fields of human studies, if one of them is, say, a psychologist, and the other - a medic. Likewise, other identical couples should be examined in their own right. Here, much depends on their level of development, the extent of their interests, and possible overlaps in their spheres of activity.

Chapter 10. Kindred Relations.

Both partners experience the world very similarly in the scope of the function, which occupies the 1st channel (the functions are the same). Where it comes to business cooperation, the relationship may prove to be quite fruitful if partners have common interests and they take care of the weak functions of each other.

But if their interests diverge, the relationship can be unpleasant, sharp, irritating. Here are two examples of these relations (types Hamlet and Hugo).

Girl of type Hugo is telling the story:

Hugo - Hamlet (ESE-EIE)

When dating we loved each other - both are emotional, especially he liked me with his eloquence. We became close quickly. Although he is by nature a pessimist, he liked my optimism, my constant good mood. My jocularity could somewhat redeem his desire to dramatize everything.

He was quite unable to be alone, he always needed for interested students. I was glad that needs me, it boosts my mood, I wanted to do for him as much enjoyable.

It turned out that the first period of our acquaintance was just wonderful, but the further the relationship became more complicated. His predictions about anything had always been negative, I also wanted to get away from the unpleasant his predictions (pressure on BI). He could quite accurately predict my reaction to a given situation, and began to use it to manipulate me (again pressure on BI). Besides, he never compromised.

Once, after a long absence, he called me, saying the date of arrival, and asked to meet. But then I was seriously ill and was unable to fulfill his request. No arguments did not convince him, for he had only one thing is clear: not met. This greatly offended him. Gradually his defiant resentment and insulted me become annoying. He has already offended at my jokes ... Well, now he is unhappy that I was too "down to earth" person, and his lofty impulses do not find in me a response ...

Here is another version of the same relationship of sociotypes (Hamlet's eyes):

My girlfriend by type - Hugo. She kept fluttering on her face - a good, open smile. Like comfort, loves to entertain, love to give presents. We can take an hour to talk to her on the phone, wondering how alike we see the world around us. I feel that my imagination, tragic twists, love the heat - all of it very interesting, but she can not live like this. I also like the fact that she is well versed in the world of things, making the right purchase, creates comfort in the room.

When the two of us going to the birthday party, I usually write poetry, draw a card, find all kinds of original ribbons, labels and so on, it provides a box of chocolates, cream or perfume. And together - get a great gift, from which good mind and heart.

Within a few years of friendship, we never had an argument. Still have a very common is that we both fall in love with ballroom dancing. But she began to dance before me, so I am pleased to learn that she can not yet know how I am. Often turn to her for advice, and like both of us.

In these two examples noteworthy dissimilarity perception of the world by both partners, despite the fact that their first channels - one and the same function. In Hamlet is a dramatic, pessimistic, anxious fantasies ... Hugo, on the contrary, tends to a joyful, optimistic perception of the world. The first example is obvious pressure on SNS, in the second, on the contrary, mutual assistance on weak functions: economic-friend Hugo creates comfort artistry Hamlet, and he, in turn, enriches the world with its enchanting fantasy.

The following example. Student psycho Balzac describes his relationship with his friend psycho Yesenin:

Balzac - Esenin (ILI-IEI)

We have a neighbor with a lot in common in nature, we both like to lie on the bed and dream, only a dream - about various things. A full understanding of us and on the order of the day, we can say that our common motto - "no order". With us live another man (his psycho Robespierre).

It happens that we are trying to introduce it in a reasonable, in his view, the way of life. Then we Esenin unite, and each object in its I logically, Yesenin - emotionally. If he does not understand something, I'm not hard to explain it to him.

But there is in us, and the differences. In any matter, I like to get to the root of the problem, am pedantic, and he anticipates good event, not paying attention to details. So happens that we do not quite understand each other.

In this story, remarkable not only for the understanding of the 1st function ("solidarity" on the part of laziness and disorder), but a different perception of the world and for the same function. Balzac "digs deep into the" looking for rational problem; Yesenin captures an image, hint, the overall picture. And both are able to support each other's weak functions.

We have repeatedly emphasized that the nature of the relationship is highly dependent on the distance of communication. Here is an example for the same psycho Balzac - Yesenin married life.

My husband is a psycho Balzac. Sverhpunktualny, sometimes even boring. But it works very much if there is a mood and need, and know how to do it. When severe, it seems somewhat dissatisfied, angry. "Scared" of all my friends. One (Jack) said: "When I see E., felt ashamed. The man works as we speak nonsense, no - thing to do. Yes, and prevent him, also. "

The main problem of our relationship and the main source of quarrels - his and my "insensitivity" in certain things. He believes that to attend to a person means, in the first place - to do something for him. It does not matter which kind, and with what words. And demand the same from others. Therefore, if he asked me to do something, and I forgot (because it is not considered very important - yes, it is necessary to wash the bottles, sew a button, check the text for errors, but it can and then), and he did not remind me , it then begins: "You do not care about my request, and I, too"; such rants I just put out. And, though I blame offended even more: to throw these words because neprishitoy buttons? Or is it the last straw? And what am I to vex him so? And so he, in turn, does not understand me: because of what I sprayed and in tears? But he's so easy to say, for the greater credibility. He does not think so. Is what I want to quarrel.

Recent typical episode. We go to the pharmacy. I am submitting a recipe, return it to me - there is no any print. I am in the perturbation of a nurse, giving me the recipe, said nothing else. I hasten to share your feelings with your husband. Waiting to answer something like: "Yes, a nurse, of course, all mixed up, but you do not worry - now we get to clinics and stamped." And I hear, "Well, I'll always say that you have to be careful, I had to ask to clarify ..." None of my arguments do not help: my fault, and that's it. And, feeling my inner aversion generally correct, but absolutely useless and even harmful in this situation, the words, he is a worse by further developing his idea, not paying attention to my request, "Enough already, let's not talk about that." As a result, I was hysterical, he is angry and offended: like a harmless, quiet conversation, and I like looking for a quarrel. Where he is wrong? Is it bad when you're once again reminded of what we need to be more attentive to everything, especially when it comes to you personally? My argument that the instructions to choose the time, and indeed for any words - and the time and form - are perceived negatively, saying that if it is to think of each phrase - how and when to say it - it will lose a lot of time, effort , do not go crazy, at least, will be close to that. I, in turn, almost in a rage and I find time for all this? And what happens if I start talking everything without an internal censorship? He told me: "Speak. Why hoard a rage? It is better to throw out once and forget. " The fact that there are things you forget very difficult, almost impossible, he does not understand, he wants. Or not. Word for it - it is, almost insignificant things. Not to mention the tone, facial expression, etc. For me, unfortunately, it is almost the main source of information about the attitude of people. Moreover, it is important to all: and what, and how, and when.

If he did not do anything, at my request, I really easy it is to forgive. I can not see and do not experience even mild annoyance. Recently, however, there is a desire to see vengeance: that's how, and he? And it is only out of revenge for his past too frequent comments about my careless disregard for and to him personally. But when I noticed even in a joking manner, he will survive, as if made a serious mistake and really blame me.

In this sad story is very characteristic appearances of the 2nd channel of the spouses. One is sure that at all times it is only suitable course of action: Yesenin said the most important emotional involvement, Balzac - practical aid. Since, moreover, the 2nd function of each partner puts pressure on the CND, the couple often quarrel. Unfortunately, in a relationship is hard to avoid the strong pressure on SNS functions, if this is initially incorporated in the structure of psycho.

Chapter 11. Superego Relations.

Here