One thing to do that might appeal to a rationalist is to use Jungian type as a model. It justifies why some people are not so rationally inclined, but can be more socially inclined. Most rationalists fall under the NT categories. The best-matched types for them are in the SF category, which specializes in socialization. However, according to the model, some pairings (super-ego emphasizing) are worse than average and others (super-id, or dual) are better.
Essentially, the most important criterion is that the J/P must be opposite, meaning that the rationality of the two individuals is the same. (Internet-based Socionists, from whom I got most of my perspective on this, happen to use J/P to represent rationality. I find that this tends to add to the confusion since Myers-Briggs is much more well-known and uses J/P to represent the rationality of the introverted and extroverted traits because that is how it shows up on tests.) The second most important criterion is that the E/I variable be different. If it is the same (and J/P are different) it is predicted that the individuals will be less synchronized as one’s resting stimulus is the other’s activity stimulus.
One of the results of having this theory/belief was that I could confidently pursue or reject women who did or did not appear to meet the criteria. As an introvert, I could reject fellow introverts, and as an intuitive I could reject intuitives—something that would not necessarily have occured to me to do otherwise. Eventually I met one who I am now married to. Our fights tend to be short, rare, and devoid of long-term pain. She tolerates my weird theories and I tolerate her bursts of irrationality. Neither of us seems threatened by the way these are expressed in the other. We also seem to help each other to develop skills and confidence in our weaker areas.
The alternative hypothesis, that it is actually just the relationship (thanks to attitudes, people skills, etc.) and not the types at all which matters is a valid one. Personal relationships are a hard area to do experiments and get a valid, uncontrovertable result. But I do think it is probable that the theory of complementing and conflicting types (which, other things equal, leads to stronger or weaker relationships) is the correct one.
One thing to do that might appeal to a rationalist is to use Jungian type as a model. It justifies why some people are not so rationally inclined, but can be more socially inclined. Most rationalists fall under the NT categories. The best-matched types for them are in the SF category, which specializes in socialization. However, according to the model, some pairings (super-ego emphasizing) are worse than average and others (super-id, or dual) are better.
Essentially, the most important criterion is that the J/P must be opposite, meaning that the rationality of the two individuals is the same. (Internet-based Socionists, from whom I got most of my perspective on this, happen to use J/P to represent rationality. I find that this tends to add to the confusion since Myers-Briggs is much more well-known and uses J/P to represent the rationality of the introverted and extroverted traits because that is how it shows up on tests.) The second most important criterion is that the E/I variable be different. If it is the same (and J/P are different) it is predicted that the individuals will be less synchronized as one’s resting stimulus is the other’s activity stimulus.
One of the results of having this theory/belief was that I could confidently pursue or reject women who did or did not appear to meet the criteria. As an introvert, I could reject fellow introverts, and as an intuitive I could reject intuitives—something that would not necessarily have occured to me to do otherwise. Eventually I met one who I am now married to. Our fights tend to be short, rare, and devoid of long-term pain. She tolerates my weird theories and I tolerate her bursts of irrationality. Neither of us seems threatened by the way these are expressed in the other. We also seem to help each other to develop skills and confidence in our weaker areas.
The alternative hypothesis, that it is actually just the relationship (thanks to attitudes, people skills, etc.) and not the types at all which matters is a valid one. Personal relationships are a hard area to do experiments and get a valid, uncontrovertable result. But I do think it is probable that the theory of complementing and conflicting types (which, other things equal, leads to stronger or weaker relationships) is the correct one.