Comfort scales intertype relationships. Compatibility of types in socionics
How to understand compatibility? By compatibility, everyday thinking usually means the degree of comfort in interpersonal relationships. Determine what comfort is much easier. Comfort is the absence of tension, the availability of amenities, a good physical and psychological state of the subject. In this definition, there is a direct connection with the socionic aspects of S and E.
In the dictionary of psychology, I find that interpersonal compatibility is a mutual acceptance in joint activities. What activity is meant? If any, then such a definition is just a fiction, because an experienced psychologist will tell you that absolute compatibility does not exist. If we mean work, then we are talking only about a particular case of compatibility. There are many understandings of compatibility, they all reflect different aspects of human life.
Socionics There is no one who is equally compatible with you in all situations.
Comfort in everyday work, comfort in overcoming extreme situations, comfort in conducting a discussion. There is no such person who would be equally compatible with you in all these situations.
Obviously, it is worth talking no less than about 16 types of comfort. Each of them has its own scale of gradations. They can be divided into large areas: social comfort, work, educational, intellectual. I am interested in this report is a kind of social comfort, which can be called family and household. So I will analyze the SE-comfort and no other.
Quadra descending amenities. Type Compatibility in Humanitarian Socionics
Let us discuss the question of logic, which I will lay in the desired scale. It comes down to the principle on which to rank all intertype relationships in a row - from the most to the least comfortable. I will resort to the theory of relative socionics, according to which each relation has one of 16 socionic types.
Relationships, like ordinary types, are divided into four quadras. Psychological comfort in the squares studied more than enough. Quadra as integral communicative units are easy to rank on the SE scale.
The most comfortable atmosphere is in the first quadra. This is the most family quadra cultivating both aspects of psychological compatibility - sensory S and ethical E. This is a collectivist quadra, it does everything together, the older ones take care of the younger ones.
The least comfortable relationship in the third quadra, which is the aipod of the first. In the gamma period, the moral and psychological atmosphere is most unstable, S- and E-values recede into the background. The traditional family collapses, experimental forms of matrimony compete with it - guest, childless, same-sex marriage, etc.
In the fourth and second squares, the atmosphere is intermediate in its comfort.
In the quadra, the delta reigns peace and tranquility, but in it there is not enough open emotionality and childish spontaneity, so characteristic of a happy family. It replaces the conscious work to strengthen material well-being. The place of romanticism is replaced by pragmatism: instead of value E, the value of R. comes to the fore
Socionics The most comfortable - alpha relations, uncomfortable - gamma relations.
In quadra beta, stability is held at the expense of the force component F. This quadra is very romantic, the emotions of E take on it in the form of passion. However, sensory comfort S is devoid of it. And according to our demand, physical relaxation plays the most important role in full-fledged family and household compatibility.
Thus, as an intermediate result, we obtained a generalized comfort series consisting of four consecutive steps:
1. the most comfortable - alpha relations,
2. average comfort - delta relations,
3. comfort below average - beta relations,
4. least comfortable (uncomfortable) - gamma relationships.
1. the most comfortable - alpha relations,
2. average comfort - delta relations,
3. comfort below average - beta relations,
4. least comfortable (uncomfortable) - gamma relationships.
Temperaments inside quadra. Type Compatibility in Humanitarian Socionics
The next problem is how to rank the four relationships within the quadral group. The logic of further ranking will be related to the temperament of the relationship. Recall that temperament is understood in socio-analysis as a combination of dynamics / statics and extra / introversion scales.
The next problem is how to rank the four relationships within the quadral group. The logic of further ranking will be related to the temperament of the relationship. Recall that temperament is understood in socio-analysis as a combination of dynamics / statics and extra / introversion scales.
The first parcel. A more comfortable psychological atmosphere develops in a dyad linked by dynamic relationships. Then partners live easily and interestingly, do not fall into the situation of looping. In static relationships, invariable, long-lasting conditions occur, for overcoming of which significant efforts are required.
The second parcel. Introverted relationships are more suitable for a family than extrovert ones. Why? Because they are calmer, warmer, deeper. Family life should not be on display, as if in a large group. This is a small closed world with its one inhabitants its understandable laws and habits, which you then recall with such warmth far from your home.
So, we complete the arrangement of IO for comfort. Temperaments decrease according to this quality in the following order: introdynamic -> extradynamic -> introstatic -> extrastatic. All sixteen relationships line up in this row:
| DU, AK, ZE, THEN > | PD, PP, PR, RO > |
| Alpha | Delta |
| MI, OZ, OR, DE > | PO, KV, KF, SE |
| Beta | Gamma |
The intra-quadratic comfort relationship ranking also has the following explanation. Socionic temperaments have a good relationship with five ways of behavior in the Thomas-Kilmenn conflict: cooperation, adaptation, compromise, evasion, rivalry.
We will merge cooperation and adaptation into one style for our purposes. The difference between them is that cooperation involves mutual adaptation. We assume that the device is just a weak version of cooperation.
By cooperating in eliminating conflict, by their nature, types of susceptible-adaptive temperament. Linearly-assertive types are much more belligerent, but due to their inherent rationalism, they still make compromises. Balanced-stable types prefer to avoid conflict to the last opportunity. And, finally, agile and agile types are distinguished by the greatest mood for victory in a collision. Their way of behavior in a conflict is rivalry.
And now I present the intersection of the quadral and temperamental properties of relations in tabular form:
| Collaborate | Compromise. | Bias | Sopern. | |
| Alpha | Remote control (1) | AK (2) | WE (3) | THEN (4) |
| Delta | PD (5) | PZ (6) | OL (7) | RO (8) |
| Beta | MI (9) | OZ (10) | OR (11) | DE (12) |
| Gamma | Software (13) | KV (14) | CF (15) | SE (16) |
We will meet with surprises. Type Compatibility in Humanitarian Socionics
The sequence of relations in the scale obtained has a number of features that will most likely cause confusion among many socionics. Therefore, I will make the necessary explanations.
The first surprise.
An audit falls into the category of relations of average comfort, while the majority of socionics will bring it into the category of uncomfortable relations. The point here is that traditional socionics does not distinguish a direct revision (PR) from a reverse revision (PR). When the auditor leads the revision dyad and the rivizable reconciles himself to this state of affairs, then the attitude of the direct revision is formed. It is characterized by a soft, humane attitude of the first to the second.
Socionics Humanitarian socionics refers not to discomfort, but to relations of average comfort, an audit. We understand the difference between direct revision and reverse.
If the audited person intercepts the initiative and begins to play the first role in the dyad, the attitude “turns over”, acquires the features of petty control and quibbles. This is a case of a backward revision, which I refer to below the average comfort category. The same thing happens with the second asymmetric relationship in the socion - the order. Direct order, in which the customer is unquestionably in the lead, and the sub-order does not dispute such an alignment of forces, is an active relationship with an average level of comfort. But if the role of the leader in the dyad intercepts the sub-order, the relationship loses its working character. There is a reverse order, the comfort of which is much lower than direct.
The second surprise.
The most uncomfortable are not conflict (CF), but the superego (SE) relationship. It is explained by the equilibrium of introstatic temperament, which the attitude of socionic conflict has.
Conflict can be ignored for some time. The superego perceives your actions as intentional inconvenience. You involuntarily pay him with the same coin, and a vicious circle of mutual claims is made. Thus, remember that the superego is the most uncomfortable partner for you at close communicative distances.
Limitations and amendments to the scale. Type Compatibility in Humanitarian Socionics
It should be remembered that this range of comfort in full works only in the case of an isolated dyad. It does not take into account the external factor at all - the influence of children, relatives, friends, neighbors, etc. The surrounding communicative environment of everyday life greatly changes the real degree of comfort, both downward for comfortable relationships and upward for uncomfortable relationships .
A person, for example, does not have the experience of quadral communication, most of the time he spent either alone or among representatives of foreign quadras. It is clear that the alpha relationship will not improve immediately. It will be necessary to overcome some barrier of distrust that separates his usual level of comfort from a higher comfortable rate in an unusual for him, although his quadra.
Moreover, relations are taken abstractly, without taking into account the typological filling of the dyad. For example, two friendly Intermediaries (SR) are much easier to get along with than two arrogant Mentors (EI). The audit by the Humanist will objectively be more patient and softer than that by the Marshall, etc.
Nevertheless, the stated principle of building comfort scales is of great practical importance. Based on it, you can build a scale of compatibility in any field of activity. In the future, corrections for distorting factors will be worked out, and then the compatibility problem in a group with different modes of its functioning will be successfully solved with a satisfactory degree of accuracy.
Comments
Post a Comment