Wikisocion - Victor Gulenko
Wikisocion - Video Lectures from School of Humanitarian Socionics by Victor Gulenko
V.G. What is the essence of dual relations in your opinion? Why do all schools of Soconics consider them to be the best relations for life together?
Audience: They support weak functions, cover for them, and unlock the strong functions.
V.G. Dual relations allow people to not waste their energy and efforts on doing something that they aren't good at and instead redirect all that energy to that which they do well.
Audience: Also give a sense of personal value ...
V.G. But is a dual appreciated right away? No, from a distance a dual isn't appealing. This type of relation develops only within close distances, only then you begin to appreciate your dual. If you've run into trouble and your dual has helped you, you sense he can provide help further on. Until you sense that returning energy, that he/she is off-loading problems from your shoulders, duals are usually not appreciated. That's why dual appeals the most when you're facing difficulties, but when you're feeling fine, no problems, no depressions, nobody is oppressing or coercing you, you're doing what you like, in this case where are you going to be pulled? Not to your duals, not to your quadra ... but to what will be you attracted?
V.G. You'll be pulled to you Club http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Club, that is, Humanitarians will be attracted to other Humanitarians [NF to NF]. It's no longer up to your vital deep core values, but your interests and hobbies: "It's interesting for me to spend time with him".
We have talked about why duality is considered to be the most comfortable for life relations. But, as with any relations there is the other side to this coin. Tell me, in which ways are dual relations deficient? What are their shortcomings?
V.G. Yes, there's loss of practice because people grow so close together. By the way if duality is very strong, often time people become very much alike each other, then it becomes difficult to tell who is who, even who's the extravert and who's the introvert becomes unclear so much they adopt from each other and become alike. The problem is loss of training of weaker functions. If you are "torn away" from your dual, you'll have a heap of problems that you've forgot how to solve because previously someone was doing all of this for you. Especially, in my opinion, I'm emphasizing this, this is not as difficult in a married couple as in a dual relation of mother and child. This separation will inevitably occur - the child will need to leave his or her mother, start new relationships with other people. But the dual side will be pulling him or her back - it's like an adhesive that will make it difficult for the child to break free.
Audience: Can't the dual train their partner on the weaker functions?
V.G. *shakes head* The dual can give advice and explain, but it's much easier to take it up yourself and do it for the other. Therefore there is very little training. The break up of a duality thus brings much anguish and suffering for both people. If duality was very strong, and one dual has departed from life, the other one doesn't remain for very long.
Audience: But can duals strike up contracts at high levels of relations - you teach me this, I teach you that?
V.G. This is a logical approach. We will talk later about this, in which relations it makes sense to logically talk things over. In dual relations, this doesn't make sense. There there is a need to feel each other here. This is more important in duality than logical negotiations.
V.G. If duals have united into one pair, tell us, is this a consonant or a dissonant union?
Audience: Dissonant from which point of view?
V.G. From point of view of relations between them. Is it easy for them to merge into one? Is such synthesis easy?
Audience: It's not easy for them to come together, but after it's difficult to separate them ... [inaudible conversation].
V.G. This is right. This means that the nature of dual relations is an antithetic synthesis i.e. synthesis of the opposites that struggle with one another but then unite: this is called unity and conflict of the opposites. This is the formula of what kind of thinking?
Audience: Dialectic thinking.
V.G. This is it, relations between duals are dialectic, they both love and hate each other. This is unavoidable. Dual relations are synthesis of the opposites. This struggle is unavoidable.
Is there any way to get rid of these painful contradictions between duals, in principle?
Audience: Um, may be, perhaps, likely not ...
V.G. In principle it's impossible. It's possible to smooth them out, by correct distribution of roles in dual pair for example, but it's impossible to remove them. This, precisely, is life; these contradictions give dual relations a special tint, without it they would have been boring. Periodically contradictions arise, they get resolved, come up, get resolved, come up, get resolved again - this is dialectical contradictory synthesis. Considering that this is the union and the struggle of the opposites, duals often come together over conflict. At first, they fight one another, raise scandals, sort out relations, then suddenly they feel a pull towards each other. This is how it happens, such is nature.
Thus, it is not possible to use formal logic to understand dual relations. They can only be understood through dialectic logic that understands that even if they are fighting they are still one whole. Only this kind of logic is able to explain these relations. Someone might say: "We have total harmony. We don't have any disagreements. There is nothing to smooth out." I don't believe it, because I know that dual relations have to go through these intensifications. Without them, you will get bored by one another. Without this there is no raisin, no spice, it would be uninteresting. This would have been static relations, while dual relations are introverted, that is closed-off autonomous relations, but also dynamic relations that are always changing.
V.G. Here's another question. Let's talk about the opposite pole: conflict relations. All school of socionics also agree that this is the opposite pole, that is, these are least recommended relations for family life and personal relationships. But does "conflict" mean loud arguments and heated confrontations?
Audience: No. [inaudible]
V.G. That's closer to superego relations, they don't get closer. But what does "conflict" mean in Socionics terms?
Audience: Something is accumulating, accumulating ...
V.G. This is right - it's inner irritation. If people of "conflicting" types are near each other and they are already irritating one another, you may not see this from outside. It could flare up, but it will happen suddenly, even often be unmotivated. Why do they irritate one another? Observers usually don't understand why isn't happening, and the person himself or herself usually doesn't understand.
Audience: Because they have different rhythms of life?
V.G. That's completely correct. Their energy isn't compatible: what is good for one is bad for the other. In dual relations this is compatible, what's good for one is good for the other. But here it's impossible to part ways, they end up obstructing and hindering each other.
Audience: And the values are different?
V.G. Yes, here we have double contradiction: their temperaments are incompatible and their quadra values are also incompatible. This is why conflict relations fall into the tier of worst relations. They don't entail scandals and loud arguments, but rather a build-up of inner tensions and irritation that could splash out, which is usually what happens, as sudden sorting out of relations that seemingly came out of nowhere.
Article comments are visible only to registered users.