Socionics Intertype Relations

Socionics intertype relations are the 16 set patterns that describe how any two of the 16 types tend to get on, from Duality, the easiest fit, to Conflict, the hardest. Twelve feel the same from both sides; the other four are the two ends of Benefaction and Supervision, where it matters which end you stand on.

They aren't guesses about individuals. Each one follows from how two types' Model A stacks line up, so the same pair always gets the same relation. Whether the predictions hold in real relationships is a separate question, and I set out what the evidence does and doesn't show. Below: the full chart, a short entry for every relation, and each type's own list.

The socionics relationship chart

All 256 pairings. Find your type down the left and read across: each cell says what the row type is to the column type. So the ILE row, LSE column reads Bn: ILE is LSE's Beneficiary. Hover a cell for the full name, or use the key below. The interactive compatibility matrix has the same data with filters, and the compatibility checker takes any two types.

Du Dual Ac Activation Mi Mirror Ki Kindred SD Semi-dual Id Identity Bu Business QI Quasi-identity Mg Mirage Bf Benefactor, Bn Beneficiary: Benefaction Sv Supervisor, Su Supervisee: Supervision SE Super-ego Ex Extinguishment Co Conflict

Shading: blue is supportive, grey is neutral, red is tense, and an outlined cell is one end of a directional relation.

How socionics compatibility works

Most compatibility systems match people who are alike. Socionics doesn't. It measures complementarity: how far one person's strengths meet the other's needs, in both directions. Two people of the same type understand each other completely and give each other nothing new. That's Identity, and it sits in the middle of the table, not at the top.

In SLIDE terms, what you most want from other people sits in your Subdued Dreamer, the Suggestive function in position five. It's the one thing you can't supply yourself and are glad to be given. With a dual, the partner's Enthusiastic Driver lands right there, and their Adventurous Discoverer lands on your Hidden Motivator. That holds for all sixteen dual pairs, and it runs both ways. Every other relation is a partial or twisted version of that fit.

What compatibility isn't: a verdict on whether two people will like each other. Upbringing, culture, circumstance and character all count, and none of them is in the model. A relation predicts the structural pull that tends to show up over time. It's a tendency, not a sentence. A dual pair can still fight, and a conflict pair can work together perfectly well with clear roles.

Full complementarity. Duals cover each other's blind spots so naturally that neither has to compensate.

Same quadra values and plenty of energy. Stimulating and sociable, best with a little distance.

Real compatibility with a catch. Mirror brings productive challenge, Kindred brings easy company, and Semi-dual comes close to duality without getting there.

Neither naturally supportive nor naturally hostile. Workable, especially at work, but rarely deep.

Attractive at first. The resemblance turns out to be shallower than it looked.

Looking at more than two people at once? The group dynamics mapper takes a group of up to eight and shows every pair's relation together, with the quadra and club split and the pairings likely to need managing.

Asymmetric relations

Most personality systems assume a relationship is level: two different people, but the same relationship from both sides. Socionics says that's true for twelve of the sixteen relations and false for four. Benefactor, Beneficiary, Supervisor and Supervisee are each a relation in their own right, because which end you're on changes what you get. In any pair of types you're one end or the other, never both.

The asymmetry comes from where each partner's strengths land. In Benefaction all the contact falls in the unconscious half of Model A: the beneficiary is quietly fed where they most want feeding, and the benefactor barely notices. In Supervision it all falls in the conscious half: the supervisor's leading strength lands on the supervisee's most vulnerable spot, and both of them feel it.

That makes them useful to know. If you feel scrutinised around someone who hasn't done anything wrong, or someone orbits you more keenly than you return, one of these is a likely reason. The mistake is reading an asymmetric relation as an equal one: expecting a supervisor's goodwill to make it comfortable, or expecting a beneficiary's interest to be returned in kind.

Friction by default. Each partner tends to hit the other's sensitive areas. Manageable with effort, but not comfortable.

Maximum structural opposition. Each partner's strongest function presses on the other's weakest.

By type

The relations above are described from the outside. Each type's relationships page reads all sixteen from one side, in the same order, and marks which end of the four directional relations that type holds.

Why this matters beyond reference: why a named relation beats a compatibility score for matchmaking, and what it would take to test.

Knowing the pattern is one thing; being in it on a Tuesday evening is another. The practical guides deal with particular situations. Read the practical guides →