The Draw of Unfavorable Intertype Relations

Given the difficulties inherent in such intertype relations as conflict, Super-Ego, supervision, and others, one might wonder why people would ever choose these relations for romance and even marriage. Wouldn't the lack of harmony and cohesiveness destroy the relationship from the onset?

Naturally, it all starts with physical attraction. People can find themself attracted to someone of any type, and biological programs kick in that encourage people to lower barriers regardless of psychological comfort levels. After all, the early stages of nearly any romantic relationship are uncomfortable, and the psyche is well-equipped to handle this.

A likely draw of conflict, supervision, and Super-Ego relations is that positive input from these types is flattering to the individual. It gives you a big self-esteem boost when you can get these types to like you and evaluate you positively. One feels like one has overcome a huge challenge to establish a relationship, and this fact is highly prized. Partners are united by the shared challenge of overcoming the huge distance between them to find a common language and somehow be close.

These relations take a lot out of partners and leave them quite worn out, especially after the initial romance is gone. Partners tend to slip back into their own language and interests and to limit their interaction with each other. If they respected each other to begin with, a sense of flattering (because of positive input on one's Super-Ego functions) mutual respect may remain, but gradually the relationship exerts a toughening and tiring influence on partners. The distance cannot be bridged after all.

Relations of conflict usually lead to a quiet separation of functions and limiting of interaction to a formal minimum. Usually partners lose their spontaneity around each other. Super-Ego relations invite more direct interaction and spontaneity but are famous for their outspoken conflicts and mutual accusations that always lead to a stalemate. Relations of supervision lead to bitter tears and feelings that the supervisor refuses to value the supervisee for who he is.

A Peculiar Trait of the Base Function

Recently I have been able to recognize a common thread in base function-determined behavior among literally all the people I know. This characteristic seems to be a fundamental source of conflicts with one's conflicters and supervisors. In these relations, the weak and limited fourth function of one partner interacts with the strong and absolute base function of the other.

The trait is that the base function processes information very rapidly and efficiently and jumps to conclusions without the individual realizing it. The base function synthesizes stored-up experience and new bits of information along its path and produces a conclusion quickly and confidently. The individual likes to share the resulting thoughts and opinions with others, not necessarily because he is sure he is right, but as a way of "flexing" his mental muscles.

A conflicter or supervisee (see chart at top right column) can be highly irritated by this if 1)these conclusions touch upon his vital interests and 2) if he doesn't agree with the person's conclusions (when people are not connected by a common vital interest, they usually just wave people like this off and go their own way).

When explaining how they reached conclusions related to their base function, people inevitably leave out some stages in their mental process. Some of the stages one finds too "obvious" to expound on; others one is not aware of. To their conflicters and supervisees, this makes it look as if the conclusion is arbitrary or based on an irrational "belief," when in fact it is based on a long string of deductions and a large body of experience that the individual is not inclined or able to elucidate.

Since the person's vital interests are at stake if the conflicter's or supervisor's conclusions are correct, he fights back by criticizing the latter's viewpoint, trying to uncover the errors and incorrect assumptions of the other (assumptions is really the key word in this type of conflict). This causes strain on the plodding fourth function. What's worse, the "offender's" views almost never budge at all, because they are based on a vast system of observations and experience.