Activity Relations are one of the top relations we can use with little to no supervision in Socionics. Partners work together, achieve together, act together, and will prove to be a great asset in any team. They strive to provide mutual assistance, but only if each partner has their chores done and if the way they work coincides and is enjoyed by both partners, which in that case will set the table for them to become focused on the same goal.
Meged and Ovcharov tell us that possibly the work methods may don’t match Activity Relations partners. They say partners will make higher demands of each other, and unnecessary disputes and mutual frustration will start to take up space and time and will even go as far as causing emotional exhaustion. However, this could be the main issue with these relations.
These relations can be found amongst the following types:
- INTj (LII, Ti-Ne) – ISFp (SEI, Si-Fe)
- ENTp (ILE, Ne-Ti) – ESFj (ESE, Fe-Si)
- INFp (IEI, Ni-Fe) – ISTj (LSI, Ti-Se)
- ENFj (EIE, Fe-Ni) – ESTp (SLE, Se-Ti)
- INTp (ILI, Ni-Te) – ISFj (ESI, Fi-Se)
- ENTj (LIE, Te-Ni) – ESFp (SEE, Se-Fi)
- INFj (EII, Fi-Ne) – ISTp (SLI, Si-Te)
- ENFp (IEE, Ne-Fi) – ESTj (LSE, Te-Si)
I.D. Vaisband, in publications on Socionics, provides a much brighter look on Activity Relations: “Contrary to the relations of duality, these relations do not have a trace of jealousy.” The fact that jealousy is out of the picture tells us that they perhaps won’t be so competitive. He does mention that there may be certain tension due to the absence of full compensation, so always make sure your activity partners are well compensated as a team. Making no distinctions as a partner is always objective, while the other way is irrational.
Gulenko in the “Criteria of Reciprocity” shares with us some tips on how we can give an extra kick into making these relations flow easily and avoid any issues:
“Partners should strive to spend some time alone, away from each other, as too much activation will exhaust them emotionally, potentially leading to a nervous breakdown. Remember that due to the strong activation effect, both (partners) may over-dramatize problems.”
Keeping partners busy and organized seems to be the critical element in these relations, and, authors Eugene Gorenko and Vladimir Tolstikov in “Nature of self,” made a high definition on how well these relations can work if well managed:
“Typically, these relations keep both partners in a happy, excited mood. Communication is energetic and leaves a vivid impression. Partners get along especially well if they have a common task.” – Not too shabby, huh?
As you can see, their issues rely on too much work, too many emotions, and so on. Activity Relations are most stable when the interaction is light and pleasant. It also helps to have other types of relations around to merge with them, such as Duality Relations. Additionally, it is beneficial to make sure both partners are always busy.
It is essential to understand that Activity Relations in teamwork will provide something other relations make lack: motivation and example, as they are visibly significant together if the circumstances allow. Sometimes people only need to see others working well, getting along, and getting things done. They will vicariously learn this behavior, feeling motivated, and learning new ways to interact with their team members and partners.
By: Dr. Graciela González Calderón-Psychologist
- Meged, Valentina. Ovcharov, Anatoly as quoted in https://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/86-Activity-Relations
- Vaisband, I.D in publications on Socionics as quoted in https://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/86-Activity-Relations
- Gulenko, V.V. “Criteria of reciprocity” as quoted https://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/86-Activity-Relations
- Gorenko, Eugene. Tolstikov, Vladimir. “Nature of self” as quoted in https://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/86-Activity-Relations