Ideal types

[Littleclaypot]

where's my girl, rarebird?

 

[peter pettishrooms]

Well considering that everyone has their own preferences not always based off of type, compatibility theories are really just a lot of bs. If you go asking around here what everyone looks for in a partner, I doubt you'd be able to identify any significant trends on what certain types find attractive in other types.

There are theories that commonly discuss how sensor-intuitive relationships are more likely to be doomed, but it all comes down to a matter of personal experiences more than anything else. If an intuitive grew up around a family with sensors that they actually learned to understand and therefore get along with, there's no doubt that they would know how to deal and work with sensors. So the potential of there being a successful N-S relationship is definitely there if the sensor also took the time to identify and fulfill the intuitive's needs.

I don't like these stereotypes of sensors being incapable of understanding complex theories because many occupations are highly represented by S types such as medicine and engineering - fields that require you to think critically in an abstract setting. The quality of someone's education plays a more significant factor in determining their ability to identify abstract patterns and use of logic. These things can be learned regardless of type. It's all a matter of how and why they use what they've learned.

 

[OrangeAppled]

From the book Just Your Type in a survey done with 2500 people:
“The more type preferences a couple had in common, the higher they rated their satisfaction with the quality of their communication.”

• about 10% of couples share all four preferences in common
• about 20% share three preferences in common
• about 35% have only two of the same preferences (the most common occurence)
• about 25% have one preference in common
• 10% have no preferences in common

Notice it's dichotomy preferences aka letters, not cognitive functions.

That contradicts many of these theoretical ideal matches (although having just 1 preference in common is the second most frequent match). I think the theoretical matches provide a kind of symmetry that sounds good on paper, but in reality, the dichotomy preferences are probably better predictors for behaviors and attitudes that can come to grate on you.

Anyway, ENFJs do sound rather ideal on paper to me, but in reality I don't feel like we ever really connect deeply. I always suspect I am not socially polished enough for them. I think I read somewhere else that ExFJ-men greatly prefer ExFJ-women. Dichotomy-wise, I am more of an INxP, which may account for some of the real-life disconnect with ENFJs.

 

[Starry]

I would be so interested in understanding what "ideal types" means to people here. I don't think it was supposed to mean "easy" or "perpetual bliss" or "my SO will never test my patience or annoy me".

I don't care what the type of the two people are...it is not conflict that kills relationships...this has long since been understood. It is the failure to act with kindness, compassion and generosity when resolving those conflicts that kills the love. Moreover, there is evidence that "conflict free" relationships are in more danger than the aforementioned due to the fact the two are likely to lose a sense of connection...the pride in having co-created a healthy institution through hard work that receives maintenance... they often suffer from boredom and a sense they are living with a stranger and not themselves known.

It is also a curious thing to me to see many members say "I could be friends with an XXXX"...when the number one predictor of relationship success is? Friendship.

 

[Taibreah]

I don't know what my ideal type would be. As I also don't exactly know what kind of person I'd prefer. I have a hard enough time trying to just understand myself. I haven't done any extensive research on which type is more compatible with which, so I can't name a certain type(s).

All I know is I get bored quickly, so I like to do get out and do things occasionally (outdoors/nature/travel), but I also value and need my alone time. As an introvert, I don't know whether I'd feel at ease and content and with another introvert, or bored with another introvert. An extrovert could get me out of my shell, but then again, they can also drain all my energy and I'll feel like I'm being smothered. I'm looking at this from a friendship point of view rather than a relationship point of view.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I would be so interested in understanding what "ideal types" means to people here. I don't think it was supposed to mean "easy" or "perceptual bliss" or "my SO will never test my patience or annoy me".

I don't care what the type of the the two people are...it is not conflict that kills relationships...this has long since been understood. It is the failure to act with kindness, compassion and generosity when resolving those conflicts that kills the love. Moreover, there is evidence that "conflict free" relationships are in more danger than the aforementioned due to the fact the two are likely to lose a sense of connection...the pride in having co-created a healthy institution through hard work that receives maintenance... they often suffer from boredom and a sense they are living with a stranger and not themselves known.

It is also a curious thing to me to see many members say "I could be friends with an XXXX"...when the number one predictor of relationship success is? Friendship.

Maybe it's some NF thing to idealize growth and appreciating people with very different strengths (and weaknesses), but I never understood wanting someone just like yourself. Maybe that says something about how I feel about myself... Or maybe it just seems slightly narcissistic and/or dull. I definitely agree that easier ≠ better.

I also think that's where these theoretical ideals come from....different enough to inspire growth and be challenging in a good way, but also complementary so there's not constant clashing.

The book I quoted from notes that stuff like communication, power, intimacy, quality time, and finances were considered the most significant factors in reported happiness. But I suppose you could argue that it may be easier to see eye-to-eye on these matters if you share dichotomy preferences.

Having dated someone with 3 shared dichotomies (and same core enneatype), I can say there may be too much assuming you are on the same page, like it's a given, and sharing similar weaknesses is definitely not good.

 

[1487610420]

Maybe it's some NF thing to idealize growth and appreciating people with very different strengths (and weaknesses), but I never understood wanting someone just like yourself. Maybe that says something about how I feel about myself... Or maybe it just seems slightly narcissistic and/or dull. I definitely agree that easier ≠ better.

I also think that's where these theoretical ideals come from....different enough to inspire growth and be challenging in a good way, but also complementary so there's not constant clashing.

The book I quoted from notes that stuff like communication, power, intimacy, quality time, and finances were considered the most significant factors in reported happiness. But I suppose you could argue that it may be easier to see eye-to-eye on these matters if you share dichotomy preferences.

Having dated someone with 3 shared dichotomies (and same core enneatype), I can say there may be too much assuming you are on the same page, like it's a given, and sharing similar weaknesses is definitely not good.

Confirmation bias/cognitive dissonance. Typology kool aid. Connection starvation. Buzz light year. Etc. People need to believe, belong, relate, control. It's all just a box of air guitar.

 

[Starry]

Maybe it's some NF thing to idealize growth and appreciating people with very different strengths (and weaknesses), but I never understood wanting someone just like yourself. Maybe that says something about how I feel about myself... Or maybe it just seems slightly narcissistic and/or dull. I definitely agree that easier ≠ better.

I also think that's where these theoretical ideals come from....different enough to inspire growth and be challenging in a good way, but also complementary so there's not constant clashing.

The book I quoted from notes that stuff like communication, power, intimacy, quality time, and finances were considered the most significant factors in reported happiness. But I suppose you could argue that it may be easier to see eye-to-eye on these matters if you share dichotomy preferences.

Having dated someone with 3 shared dichotomies (and same core enneatype), I can say there may be too much assuming you are on the same page, like it's a given, and sharing similar weaknesses is definitely not good.

I don't know how many dichotomies I share with my phone's autocorrect but I will not date it.

 

[1487610420]

I don't know how many dichotomies I share with my phone's autocorrect but I will not date it.

When did it all begin

 

[Starry]

When did it all begin

Always trying to make me look stupid. From the very beginning...


edit: Is saying "From the very beginning..." an appropriate answer to "When did it all begin?"

It started when autocorrect and I first met phobik.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Confirmation bias/cognitive dissonance. Typology kool aid. Connection starvation. Buzz light year. Etc. People need to believe, belong, relate, control. It's all just a box of air guitar.

Been chatting with Mole lately, huh?

 

[1487610420]

Been chatting with Mole lately, huh?

 

[Starry]

From the book Just Your Type in a survey done with 2500 people:
“The more type preferences a couple had in common, the higher they rated their satisfaction with the quality of their communication.”

• about 10% of couples share all four preferences in common
• about 20% share three preferences in common
• about 35% have only two of the same preferences (the most common occurence)
• about 25% have one preference in common
• 10% have no preferences in common

Notice it's dichotomy preferences aka letters, not cognitive functions.

That contradicts many of these theoretical ideal matches (although having just 1 preference in common is the second most frequent match). I think the theoretical matches provide a kind of symmetry that sounds good on paper, but in reality, the dichotomy preferences are probably better predictors for behaviors and attitudes that can come to grate on you.

Anyway, ENFJs do sound rather ideal on paper to me, but in reality I don't feel like we ever really connect deeply. I always suspect I am not socially polished enough for them. I think I read somewhere else that ExFJ-men greatly prefer ExFJ-women. Dichotomy-wise, I am more of an INxP, which may account for some of the real-life disconnect with ENFJs.

I said to you last night that I actually had a meaningful response to your other post but then I got hung up on the bolded...

Did the authors/researchers apply the same stats to the overall satisfaction of the relationship in general or just communication? I recognize that communication is a big deal...but it is also a tricky thing for many people regardless. In fact, many people throughout history have claimed that if you don't share the letter preference for M and F for example...communication challenges greatly increase.

Are these stats meant to be applied to the entire relationship?

 

[OrangeAppled]

I said to you last night that I actually had a meaningful response to your other post but then I got hung up on the bolded...

Did the authors/researchers apply the same stats to the overall satisfaction of the relationship in general or just communication? I recognize that communication is a big deal...but it is also a tricky thing for many people regardless. In fact, many people throughout history have claimed that if you don't share the letter preference for M and F for example...communication challenges greatly increase.

Are these stats meant to be applied to the entire relationship?

I'm too lazy to type out exact quotes...but 92% in the survey said communication is the most important aspect of a satisfying relationship and that the more satisfied they were with communication, the more satisfied they were with their relationship.

As for overall satisfaction, the more similar people were to their partners (but they don't define what makes them similar...is it just type? They also polled people on values), the more satisfied they were with their relationships. 52% who said they were similar were satisfied whereas only 22% were satisfied when they said they were different from their partner. They also noted a "spillover" effect, saying that the happier people were with their job, the happier they tended to be in their relationship.

I suspected they focused on communication because the other factors determined for a happy relationship simply have no connection to type. The top factors were trust, communication, mutual respect, mutual commitment, and fidelity. The sources for conflict were communication, power/control, intimacy, money and quality time together. Some of those seem like personality preferences could come into play.

The most interesting part of the book is the appendix which features these stats, but disappointingly, it doesn't break things down as much as it could. The most glaring thing is it doesn't have average ratings from individual types on each type as a partner (just stuff like TPs rating TJs or SFJs rating NFPs, etc), yet it has a chapter discussing every single possible pairing and typical challenges/benefits of those relationships.

Makes for good entertainment anyway

 

[Poki]

I'm too lazy to type out exact quotes...but 92% in the survey said communication is the most important aspect of a satisfying relationship and that the more satisfied they were with communication, the more satisfied they were with their relationship.

As for overall satisfaction, the more similar people were to their partners (but they don't define what makes them similar...is it just type? They also polled people on values), the more satisfied they were with their relationships. 52% who said they were similar were satisfied whereas only 22% were satisfied when they said they were different from their partner. They also noted a "spillover" effect, saying that the happier people were with their job, the happier they tended to be in their relationship.

I suspected they focused on communication because the other factors determined for a happy relationship simply have no connection to type. The top factors were trust, communication, mutual respect, mutual commitment, and fidelity. The sources for conflict were communication, power/control, intimacy, money and quality time together. Some of those seem like personality preferences could come into play.

The most interesting part of the book is the appendix which features these stats, but disappointingly, it doesn't break things down as much as it could. The most glaring thing is it doesn't have average ratings from individual types on each type as a partner (just stuff like TPs rating TJs or SFJs rating NFPs, etc), yet it has a chapter discussing every single possible pairing and typical challenges/benefits of those relationships.

Makes for good entertainment anyway

Curious how much dissatisfaction with relationships brings dissimilarities to the surface vs similarities even though in the grand scheme similarities hasn't changed as all, just a person's perception.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Curious how much dissatisfaction with relationships brings dissimilarities to the surface vs similarities even though in the grand scheme similarities hasn't changed as all, just a person's perception.

YES.

I read somewhere else - but I can't remember where or when or how - that people who were happy in a relationship often didn't feel it had much to do with compatibility and apparently didn't even feel they were . Instead, they saw their happiness as a result of their attitude and effort; whereas unhappy people often cited incompatibility as the source of the relationship problems.

Of course, if you are unhappy and blame incompatibilities, then it suggests you view things as fixed and it's possibly a defense to not have to adjust yourself. Similar to the locus of control thing too...

 

[Forever]

Yeah I really think particular types being best for each other is off and outdated imho.

The biggest divide is the N/S divide. If you can share on that, there won't be as many conflicts as it from F/T alone. Although that is the second biggest divider probably J/P then I/E.

 

[Starry]

I'm too lazy to type out exact quotes...but 92% in the survey said communication is the most important aspect of a satisfying relationship and that the more satisfied they were with communication, the more satisfied they were with their relationship.

As for overall satisfaction, the more similar people were to their partners (but they don't define what makes them similar...is it just type? They also polled people on values), the more satisfied they were with their relationships. 52% who said they were similar were satisfied whereas only 22% were satisfied when they said they were different from their partner. They also noted a "spillover" effect, saying that the happier people were with their job, the happier they tended to be in their relationship.

I suspected they focused on communication because the other factors determined for a happy relationship simply have no connection to type. The top factors were trust, communication, mutual respect, mutual commitment, and fidelity. The sources for conflict were communication, power/control, intimacy, money and quality time together. Some of those seem like personality preferences could come into play.

The most interesting part of the book is the appendix which features these stats, but disappointingly, it doesn't break things down as much as it could. The most glaring thing is it doesn't have average ratings from individual types on each type as a partner (just stuff like TPs rating TJs or SFJs rating NFPs, etc), yet it has a chapter discussing every single possible pairing and typical challenges/benefits of those relationships.

Makes for good entertainment anyway

Appendixes are always the most interesting parts of books and often times maybe when I was in school all I ever read of a book on the night before a test <-OP huh? How's that for not even remotely annoying but super impressive?


Okay, this what I started to imagine only after having posted... I really appreciate you responding to this/clarifying...

 

[Dreamer]

Yeah I really think particular types being best for each other is off and outdated imho.

The biggest divide is the N/S divide. If you can share on that, there won't be as many conflicts as it from F/T alone. Although that is the second biggest divider probably J/P then I/E.

I was going to agree with the N/S divide at first since that does create a potential for much miscommunication, but thinking now, I think my biggest requirement is if my mate is at least fairly open to new ideas and experiences. They don't have to agree with all my ideas of course, that too would be bad! but I really can't be around people for too long who are so quick to shut ideas down without giving at least a smidgen of consideration. I don't think that's really type based, though, I can see how some types would be more natural to a sort of "openness".

 

[Forever]

I was going to agree with the N/S divide at first since that does create a potential for much miscommunication, but thinking now, I think my biggest requirement is if my mate is at least fairly open to new ideas and experiences. They don't have to agree with all my ideas of course, that too would be bad! but I really can't be around people for too long who are so quick to shut ideas down without giving at least a smidgen of consideration. I don't think that's really type based, though, I can see how some types would be more natural to a sort of "openness".

For me, ENTP men and women are kind of interesting but they're not the kind of people I'd stay up all night thinking about. I mean I value knowledge in so much I can see people can get in touch with, not necessarily to be witty. I think witty jokes are funny sometimes and occasionally I write them sometimes (although they're very short and minor. But yeah not say I couldn't get along with any type. I could even see myself marrying an ISFJ if given the right reasons and circumstances.

Immature types of any is a big turn off. Even an INFJ, I keep thinking oh if only you're past that stage already.. yeah open-mindedness can go in separate ways of doing things new or unexplored skills or just being open to see reality in a different light / open to newer concepts so make sure your partner understands what you mean haha