Blocks of Model A

Here is a sketch of some of the defining characteristics of each of the blocks of Model A. These come from observing how functions work in real life and generalizing across types. Terms are explained wherever they appear for the first time, and they or their opposites can be applied everywhere).

Ego
Enjoyable to experience (fun to be in this environment)
Easy to use (doesn't require much conscious effort or "willpower" to focus on)
Prone to burnout (gets stuck in a rut and become overworked)
Normal state of mind (what a person is usually like when interacting with others)
Very high endurance (functions can easily effectively be used for hours at a time)
High initiative (person foresees problems in these areas and manages them in advance)
High tolerance (can handle being exposed to these types of information for a long period of time)
Likes to talk (about things from the perspective of these kinds of information)
Thinks openly (involves other people in thinking/experiencing process)
Likes to do (turns talk into action)
Likes to lead (sets the tone in these areas for others)
Doesn't like to follow (others' initiative without adding new initiatives of one's own)

Super-Ego
A strain to experience
Hard to use
Tense state of mind
Low endurance
Low initiative
Low tolerance
Doesn't like to talk
Thinks to oneself
Doesn't like to lead
Doesn't like to follow

Id
A minor strain to experience
Fairly easy to use
Unusual ('weird') state of mind
Medium endurance
Medium tolerance
Doesn't like to talk
Doesn't think
Likes to do briefly
Likes to lead briefly
Likes to follow briefly

Super-Id
Enjoyable to experience
Medium-hard to use
Prone to neglect
Regenerative state of mind
Medium-high endurance
Medium-high tolerance
Likes to talk
Doesn't think
Likes for others to do
Doesn't like to lead
Likes to follow

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.

Simplifying Reality Through the Weak Functions

This topic came to me while working on a translation of Augusta's The Dual Nature of Man. Augusta's type was ILE. She had a definite tendency to simplify factors affecting relationships and interaction between people. Today her theoretical understanding of socionics and intertype interaction still lies at the foundation of socionics, but they have been fleshed out and are widely recognized to be not as clear-cut as she originally described them. In comparison, my blog and website show a more diverse approach to the topic of human interaction that includes other sources of insight (psychology, evolution, personal observations) in addition to socionics.

The difference? Augusta was an ILE with weak (simplistic) , whereas for me is an area of creativity and multi-dimensional perception. Augusta in effect describes a sphere with the aid of . Since her explanations of relationships are secondary to her discovery of new patterns and structure in personality and information interchange, her oversimplifications are permissable, but in the long run they lose out in memetic competition to more fleshed-out and sensitive approaches to understanding relationships. Her understanding of relationships is rough and simplistic and doesn't pick up on the nuances of people's subjective feelings and the diversity of factors that influence these feelings from day to day.

Each of us simplifies certain aspects of reality as well. Have you ever met people who say and believe that all you have to do to maintain good health is eat less than 2000 calories a day, or visit the doctor every six months, or jog three times a week for 40 minutes? Have you ever met people who say and believe that all you have to do to develop your intellectual powers is read one book a week? Or that the key to maintaining a good relationship with your spouse is to frame statements about the relationships in the first person rather than the third (e.g. "I feel distressed when... " instead of "You never... !")? Or that the key to professional success is to perform one's duties and assignments diligently? Or that the way to ensure their physical safety is to take a self-defense course?

Each of these beliefs bears the mark of a weak function (usually the Super-ego). People take a one-dimensional approach toward a multi-dimensional issue. The purpose of this approach is to avoid thinking about this particular aspect of life in order to direct a larger proportion of attention and energy to our "favorite" tasks and activities. People with a multi-dimensional intuitive understanding of the area in question display a willingness to examine the nuances of each problem as it comes up instead of applying a blanket solution (one might say, a "final solution," to use Hitler's revealing choice of words). In certain areas of life each of us is prone to concoct "final solutions" that - naturally - must ultimately fail, since we assume that the problems that arise in this area will always be of the same narrow type that we have been able to foresee. But not all health problems arise from obesity, reading does not involve the entire intellect, relationships cannot be saved through careful wording, diligent employees are often laid off, and robbers do not always attack from the front and warn that they are assaulting you.

In the absence of close relationships with duals (and, to a degree, activators and partial duals), this one-dimensional approach often turns into a rigid false conviction; the individual believes he has found the single correct way of doing things and does not recognize his own incompetency. Dual relations in particular tend to keep the psyche flexible and constantly remind the individual of his own subjectivity in many areas of reality.