Talk:Interpersonal compatibility

Untitled
IMHO, citing sources from another language only makes sense if the topic is culture or country specific, and English is not the language of the relevant culture or country. For a general topic as this one–interpersonal compatibility– citing sources from another language is inappropriate. Therefore, I propose deleting these citations.
 * I'd agree with just one remark. I know some articles in English dedicated to narrow particular aspects of this problem, but I do not know sources which considered this problem in general. It does not mean that such sources do not exist, it rather means that I do not have profound knowledge of psychological sources in English. I hope that somebody else will add such references, then references to sources in Russian or German will become redundant and can be removed. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the wording in the MHC section. Aoife2661 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Four friends
Most research seems to focus on "the one" ideal mate

My thesis: Every one needs four friends, who are equally important for "social health", which is a mirror of mental health.

Four friends:


 * Two friends are "dual relations" (same rationality)
 * two friends cross the "rational/irrational barrier"

... in terms of socionics.

The first two feel more like family members (private).

The second two feel more like coworkers (public).



compatibility chart for personality types
I extrapolated this to a "landscape of 16 people" (seen from above), where closeness means "compatible" and distance means "incompatible" = a concrete compatibility chart for personality types. See https://milahu.github.io/alchi/src/alchi-maps/public/alchi-maps.html

Project homepage: https://github.com/milahu/alchi



bond types
I guess the two dual relations are "monolog bonds", where talking flows in one direction, and showing flows in the opposite direction. To "talk back", we must connect four monolog bonds to a square (i call it "flowsquare") where all four people have the same rationality.

The other two relations give access to a different group-of-four, which i call "tenscross", where all four personality types are found (50% rational + 50% irrational).

flowsquare + tenscross = pallas symbol = connection of seven points (seven is a holy number) = conjunctio oppositorum (connection of opposites).

culture and civilization
This also has implications on culture in general (early education, school). Ideally, personality types are balanced in all groups (student group and teacher group).

The biggest limiting factor are human laws (civilization), which "set in stone" prejudices and expectations, that only some personality types meet, and other types are "born criminals", who are treated like wild animals who must be tamed (sigmund freud: sublimation of aggressive drives).

devil child
Another challenge is the "devil child problem" (changeling child, black sheep of the family). The "normal" solution is to "hold on" to the child (ethics of good intentions. at least the parents tried to fix the child, no matter the result). To "let go" of the child (adoption) is seen as a failure of the parents. See also Cultural variations in adoption. (Theodicy: Life is just a test of patience = slave morality = patience is better than luck.) So, taking children away from parents is hard. It's easier to build extended families (or "child markets", like schools but open for parents), where the "child exchange" happens more slowly, so the "habit" types can adapt.

toxicity of the city
I guess modern cities reinforce bad habits, so testing my hypothesis should be easier outside of cities, in villages (arranged villages, not historically grown villages, arranged for balance of types). Such small groups (150, dunbar's number = about 9 x 16 = 144 = octothorpe = eight-village = 8 x 16 = 128) are "manageable without technology" (technology such as bookkeeping) (technology always enables abuse of technology, such as bookfaking).

theory of everybody
I'm leaving this here, in case anyone is looking for a "theory of everybody" (a "theory of everything", but limited to the meso-cosmos of human relations).

I keep spreading my pamphlets, but I don't have much hope to see a test of my claims in my lifetime, as I'm too much of an outsider.

Milahu (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)