Your own quadra - xAAA & xBBB. Partners share similar values and perspectives.
Dual, BBBB
Duals adequately fulfill the weak points of each other in complementary ways.
Near-Dual, ABBB
Near-duals are complementary in function, but the strength of those functions are mismatched for true alignment.
Identical, AAAA
Near-Identical, BAAA
Medium Relations
Semi-Dual, BBAB & BABB
Semi-duals either have their dominant or auxiliary function in the same place as their partner’s dual.
Benefit, ABAB & AABB
Benefit partners have a complementary function in a different place than their partner’s dual.
Similar, AABA & ABAA
Similar partners share in common their dominant or auxiliary function in the same place.
Semi-Similar, BABA & BBAA
Semi-similar partners share in common their dominant or auxiliary function in different places.
Worst Relations
The opposite quadra - xAAB & xBBA. Partners do not share values nor perspectives in common, and thus have a hard time relating.
Quasi-Identical, AAAB
Partners have similar strengths and weaknesses and may appear the same, but upon closer inspection, they have completely different ways of thinking.
Conflictor, BBBA
Partners’ weak points clash against each other, and they are not easily able to find a common ground.
Semi-Conflictor, BAAB
Near-Conflictor, ABBA
Explanation
Socionics and attitudinal psyche already have relation theories. Even the enneagram institute website gives descriptions of how types interact, even if it’s not as formal. Mbti, however, does not. This is likely because mbti is the theory that is most about your internal world: Socionics describes how you interact with the world, attitudinal psyche describes how you function under life’s fundamentals, and mbti describes your mind’s processes.
The creation of Attitudinal Psyche brought up an interesting issue: You can have relations that are good in AP but bad in socionics. You can straight-up be someone’s dual in one theory and conflictor in another! With this “nonsense” possibility now a reality, I figured, what’s the harm with another layer of relations? Thus, I mapped out how I think people interact based on their MBTI types.
I propose that…
Functions are more relevant than letters
Sharing functions leads to an easier time getting along
Not sharing functions leads to distance and/or conflict
Having a function in the 3rd or 4th spot means a “partner” with the function at the 1st or 2nd spot can be a role model and assist you in using it