According to the The Myers Briggs Short Quiz @ OK Cupid, the INFJ is most compatible not with its Anima, the ESTP (in fact it lists the anima as being the least compatible), but with the Pedagogue (ENTP) and Contrast (ENFP). We'll need to forget Socionics to understand this analysis. I'm trying to find this other site which I found the other day, where I'd read both interesting and ignorant (or perhaps offensive based on my standards) interpretations of the MBTI - the only interesting part worth mentioning being that the parents' types supposedly influenced our preferences. Since I'm still unclear as to how much of what is being proven through MBTI is seen as nature vs nurture - whether the point is that our preferences are shaped by our experiences or that our personalities are predestined by the way our brains are wired, or a combination of both - I can't draw final conclusions about the validity of the system; however, it seems to deliver some degree of truth and practical use, at least in terms of predicting how different functions interact with each other, such as in the case of the boundlessly creative Ne-Ni interaction (read about cognitive functions to understand the polarity dance between extraversion-introversion).
What fascinates me is the notion that romance is a created force, a system based on myths and hierarchy of power (or strengths). What I want to know is what type of relationship dynamic is seen as ideal by the analysts and why - because based on their preferences, their conclusions might not be right for me at all. As always, take it all with a grain of salt...this stuff is really all in fun.
Relationship Pairs (Source: Typelogic)
Advisor: each has an area of insight that the other lacks
Cohort: mutually drawn into experiential escapades
Companion: similar modes of expression: bear each other’s company well
Complement: compatible strengths with opposite emphases
Supplement: like Pal, but functions are farther removed: each can add to the other’s strengths
Tribesman: share a sense of culture, but with different interests and abilities
Anima: fits Dr. Beebe’s description of the anima/anumus: each is the other’s inferior (4th) function
Contrast: point and counterpoint on each function
Counterpart: perform similar functions in totally different realms
Enigma: a puzzle: totally foreign in nearly every facet
Identity: same types: a typological mirror-image
Neighbor: arrive at the same place by variant processes
Novelty: intriguingly different: interestingly so
Pal: work and play well together: minimal natural type conflict
Pedagogue: each is both the other’s mentor and student: has a “parent to child” feel
Suitemate: a person one might be comfortable sharing an office. Prefer similar climates, but don’t necessarily have much in common as far as goals or world view
I will be adding links related to the Pedagogue and Contrast relationship types as I find them.
Posts
