Model M relations paste

Model M relations paste
=======================



INQUIRY 1
---------

I'd speculate that Mirror relations and Contrary relations have gotten mixed up for ILI in Model A. But this relation remains directed in Model M in the sense that the extrovert is in a more vulnerable position.

In a similar vein, INTj appears to be less vulnerable than ENTp even though these types share a quadra. This manifests as ENTp being less inclined to find meaning in formal logic. But this is more difficult to explain because Model A is made by ENTp so shouldn't they get all of their own relations right?

Maybe not because in Model M ENTp and INTj are both introverts. This could mean it's more difficult to observe their behaviour.

If ISTj and ESTp are named "Conquerors" in Model A then ENTp have probably paid attention to the impressive way in which these people make an effort to get what they want. It would be easy to end up calling ISTj and ESTp "Mirrors" of each other despite being an ENTp and then incorrectly extending that analogy to one's own type.

There's a directed Contrary relation so that INTj CTR> ENTp and their Mirrors are some other type, respectively.

INTj MRR ENTj, not INTj CTR> ENTj. These types are much better at coordinating mutual activity than INTp and ENTj who supposedly are Mirrors in Model A. It's easy to understand why ISTj and ESTp, or ISTp and ESTj, would be Mirrors but there's no solid argument for the case that this applies among alphas and gammas.

In my own experience, the type-specific problems of a INTp–ENTp relationship can be reduced to this:
- INTp tries to be polite by reciprocating social initiative, inviting ENTp somewhere so that both end up confused about why did they come.
- They cannot share women because INTp feels like he's compromising his personal integrity in order to pay attention and listen and he doesn't want to send the wrong message by letting a woman pay too much attention to this.

Of course if an INTp decides he needs to correct an ENTp then the relation will look like a Contrary one. It's plausible that every ENTp who has touched Model A has met an INTp who has criticised that. It's very unlikely that any such ENTp would want to work with another INTp again so I understand why ENTp would be mistaken about the ENTp–INTp relation.

But if there is a common ground then ENTp and INTp are more like Mirrors than Contrary. In this case the real Contrary relation turns out to be INTj CTR> ENTp.

Neither INTp nor ENTp is as inclined towards formal logic as INTj. However, INTp is more quiet and patient than ENTp so INTj are more likely to teach formal logic to INTp than ENTp. After the ENTp notices the INTp to use formal logic he'll ask about why does he do that.

This is a good question. Neither one of them is naturally inclined towards that so the INTp perfectly understands how the ENTp feels about that. The real answer to the question is that if an INTp has a habit of formalising his ideas then he will get predisposed towards finding new relevant information this way. The habit of formalising ideas also predisposes towards programming.

If it's just formal logic that's supposed to make the INTp have a Contrary relation towards the ENTp then this isn't essentially a Contrary relation. If an INTp has been taught logic right he's probably been taught by an INTj. An INTj would probably prefer to teach logic to an INTp because then he'd be conditioning the INTp Id. The Id isn't valued so the INTp doesn't care what does the INTj teach him as long as he believes that to pertain to logic.

The ENTp Ego includes the same information elements in the same order as the INTp Id but these are valued, meaning that the ENTp would probably question any principle he finds counterintuitive, making it harder for the INTj to teach him.

The ENTp who made Model A think that INTp CTR> ENTp because they've probably met some INTp critical of their work. But the truth is that INTj CTR> ENTp so that INTj simply don't show that.

ILI REL SEI is a symmetric relation matching the description of ACT except that there's no "clingy judging partner" and the relation isn't as easy to start as ACT is supposed to.

ILI REL ESI is a directed relation matching the description of EGO except that there is a "clingy judging partner" but the relation is easy to start like ACT.



INQUIRY 2
---------

How Power Affects Relations

***

Complementary hypothesis 1: The descriptions of relations LKL and CMP of Model A got mixed up for dynamic types.

Primary hypothesis 1: The complementary hypothesis applies before the relation involves sex or power issues. After that, the opposite of the complementary hypothesis is a better description of the relation. The relation also turns asymmetric in favour of the one who desired the other less or got power over the other.

This means that for dynamic types LKL relations are more difficult to start but cleaner and easier to end whereas CMP relations are easier to start but it can be messy and difficult to end them. So with CMP relations it would be better not to get a reason to end the relationship.

That is, CMP relations of dynamic types feel like LKL relations (better) indefinitely unless the people get too close for comfort.

***

Complementary hypothesis 2: The descriptions of relations CTR and MRR of Model A got mixed up for alphas and gammas.

Primary hypothesis 2: The complementary hypothesis applies for the MRR relation before this relation involves sex or power issues. After that MRR relations begin to resemble CTR relations so that the "extrovert's vulnerable position" is assumed by the one who lost the contest for power or desirability.

On the other hand, in CTR relations the "less vulnerable introvert" controls power dynamics so that he appears disadvantaged in the relation whenever he doesn't take initiative and dominant whenever he does but there's no middle ground.

It seems impossible to point out any moment when the power dynamics of this relation would permanently or discretely change. They appear to always be essentially dynamic or fluid when compared with power dynamics of MRR relations.

Therefore, the complementary hypothesis applies to MRR relations in a static way whereas it applies to CTR relations in a dynamic way. In CTR relations the partners feel like they cooperate on tasks as if they'd be MRR as long as no power issues emerge. However, MRR relations lack a warm or cordial mood which isn't the case for CTR relations.

Furthermore, when partners of a CTR relation feel they have no power issues between themselves they appear to others as if they would. The dynamic type appears to be in a disadvantaged position so that the static type doesn't notice this. If others pay attention to this the dynamic type might need to act out in order to correct that impression but then he'll ignore the static type's point of view.