Advertisement
There is a lot of different information out there regarding romantic compatibility between types. Among others, I know of the following theories of perfect matches:
- Opposites attract (INTJ + ESFP, ISTP + ENFJ etc.)
- Keirsey: Opposites attract, but N or S must be the same (INTJ + ENFP, ISTP + ESFJ etc.)
- Personalitypage: The dominant function must be shared, but oppositely directed (INTJ with Introverted Intuition + ENFP _or_ ENTP since both have Extraverted Intuition, ISTP with Introverted Thinking + ESTJ _or_ ENTJ since both have Extraverted Thinking)
Based on my own observations, I believe that Keirsey has it right when he insists that N or S should be the same. I also believe that Personalitypage is correct in emphasizing the importance of having the same dominant function. Finally, I believe that, as long as the basic language (N or S) and interest (dominant function) are the same, opposites do indeed attract and complement one another.
I therefore propose the following hierarchy of relationship matches:
---
Condition 1: The dominant function must be the same, but oppositely directed.
Condition 2: The perceiving function (N or S) must be the same.
If possible once these conditions are met, the judging function (T or F) should be different.
---
This leads to the following eight optimal matches:
INTJ-ENFP (Dominant function: Intuition, T and F opposite)
ENTP-INFJ (Dominant function: Intuition, T and F opposite)
ISTJ-ESFP (Dominant function: Sensing, T and F opposite)
ESTP-ISFJ (Dominant function: Sensing, T and F opposite)
INTP-ENTJ (Dominant function: Thinking)
ISTP-ESTJ (Dominant function: Thinking)
ENFJ-INFP (Dominant function: Feeling)
ESFJ-ISFP (Dominant function: Feeling)
---
I'd love to hear any thoughtful comments.
Also, if anyone is aware of a source who has already published this hierarchy, please let me know.
- Opposites attract (INTJ + ESFP, ISTP + ENFJ etc.)
- Keirsey: Opposites attract, but N or S must be the same (INTJ + ENFP, ISTP + ESFJ etc.)
- Personalitypage: The dominant function must be shared, but oppositely directed (INTJ with Introverted Intuition + ENFP _or_ ENTP since both have Extraverted Intuition, ISTP with Introverted Thinking + ESTJ _or_ ENTJ since both have Extraverted Thinking)
Based on my own observations, I believe that Keirsey has it right when he insists that N or S should be the same. I also believe that Personalitypage is correct in emphasizing the importance of having the same dominant function. Finally, I believe that, as long as the basic language (N or S) and interest (dominant function) are the same, opposites do indeed attract and complement one another.
I therefore propose the following hierarchy of relationship matches:
---
Condition 1: The dominant function must be the same, but oppositely directed.
Condition 2: The perceiving function (N or S) must be the same.
If possible once these conditions are met, the judging function (T or F) should be different.
---
This leads to the following eight optimal matches:
INTJ-ENFP (Dominant function: Intuition, T and F opposite)
ENTP-INFJ (Dominant function: Intuition, T and F opposite)
ISTJ-ESFP (Dominant function: Sensing, T and F opposite)
ESTP-ISFJ (Dominant function: Sensing, T and F opposite)
INTP-ENTJ (Dominant function: Thinking)
ISTP-ESTJ (Dominant function: Thinking)
ENFJ-INFP (Dominant function: Feeling)
ESFJ-ISFP (Dominant function: Feeling)
---
I'd love to hear any thoughtful comments.
Also, if anyone is aware of a source who has already published this hierarchy, please let me know.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Hierarchy of conditions for perfect matches
Wed, December 27, 2006 - 8:17 AMWell I for one find i problematic to talk about ONE optimal match. As every psychologist knows, we are all bound to form idiosyncratic psychological preferences during our formative years. These preferences lie outside of the MBTI model while still affecting the individual psyche including, quite possibly, its romantic orientation and compatability as well.
That being said, I do aknowledge certain criteria that seem to map out the basis of a good relationship regardless of type. A shared dominant function, oppositely directed seems sound so Tanja, why do think the judging function (T or F) should be different? -
-
Re: Hierarchy of conditions for perfect matches
Fri, December 29, 2006 - 7:44 AMHi Boisenberg
I agree with you that past experience might affect an individual to the point where they cannot enjoy a relationship with their perfect match according to my hierarchy. For instance, a P who has been traumatized by constant criticism from excessively J parents might conceivably be unable to value the complementarity of a well-rounded J partner because they have become allergic to all judgments, even the mildest and most necessary ones. However, my interest is in establishing the perfect matches for mentally healthy individuals - a theoretical baseline, if you will, and a high mark at which well-rounded individuals with many partners to choose from should take aim.
Why do I think that the judging function (T and F) should be different if possible, i.e. for four of the eight matches? This is simply what I have induced from the (admittedly few) ridiculously happy relationships that I know of. Personally, I think it makes good sense that the complementarities should be maximized, once the all-important conditions of shared dominant and perceiving functions are fulfilled.
-
-
Re: Hierarchy of conditions for perfect matches
Fri, January 19, 2007 - 11:50 AMI agree. the N and S functions should be the same for a more satisfying marriage. i also think that F and T matches are ideal as long as neither parties are extreme. i agree with your hierarchy of matches. nicely done.