Poll: Assisting your dual

[tcaudilllg]

By "new and novel" I mean, are you creative in thinking of new ways to help others, and to contribute socially? Would you try something that hadn't been tried before -- something completely of your own invention -- to help your dual? Are you alert to the needs of your dual and always trying to accomplish something with your dual-seeking functions?

This is a public poll for research purposes. If you do or do not have confidence in your ability to help your dual, this may be a manifest trait of your writing upon closer inspection.

[liveandletlive]

i think we do it naturally.

[redbaron]

I only know one person who's my dual and I would say that our interaction is naturally helpful. I don't go out of my way to help him though (but we're married to other people, so that's part of it).

[Ms. Kensington]

i find it exceedingly easy to see where my dual needs help. rather, i find it very easy to apply my program function-- to structure their input-- with them. In that sense yeah, i'm creative. its very easy and fun to "help" this way.

im also pretty sure that esfjs laugh their asses off at how socially stupid their duals are.. but they give advice that's probably fun for them as well, not tedious or just plain confusing as other types might find their (intjs') questions.

EDIT: i also dont think that we really create anything new SOCIALLY. the help is done for the dual. that is the way the dual can contribute socially because they are so damn satisfied by the dual it shuts them up in their self doubt. but it can also make them stop pursuing a path of resistance. but i don't think of this help as productive the way you seem to imply. Others can correct me, please do.

[munenori2]

I'm pretty much in agreement with the other posts above. I don't do anything special or new, but sometimes I get the feeling that they look at what I do like that. I know it works that way from my perspective. On their part it just seems like they do all this awesome stuff without hardly an effort which never ceases to amaze me.

[Ms. Kensington]

actually... where i see social change possible as a result of dual teams is in the ESxp and INxp pair. hm. But not the other pairs.

[marooned]

I don't come up with novel ways of socializing with anyone. I have come up with novel ways of avoiding people.

[Logos]

I think a far more interesting question may be how a type uses the dual's own primary functions when together. While Socionics generally says that the type relaxes the use of the weak subconscious functions in the presence of the dual, I am not so sure that is necessarily the case.

[tcaudilllg]

I don't come up with novel ways of socializing with anyone. I have come up with novel ways of avoiding people.

So you don't try to produce values to meet the organizational needs of an effort you favor? (SeTi)

[marooned]

^I don't know... I don't seem to resonate with the idea of "producing values."

[UDP]

My dual can help me in the same time every way and I wouldn't really care. Just as long as it works. Something I can count on is calming, and something to calm me down consistently, that's really nice.

I don't mind being new and creative, because I know there is always new stuff that needs to be dealt with. Yeah, I feel confident in that.

[xyz]

I don't come up with novel ways of socializing with anyone. I have come up with novel ways of avoiding people.

Why do you hate me so much

[marooned]

Why do you hate me so much

what? I don't hate you.

[xyz]

Oops! I forgot the

..I'm sure your dual would hunt you down and FORCE you to hang out with him heheh

[marooned]

'It's not about what your dual can do for you, it's about what you can do for your dual.'

[Ms. Kensington]

While Socionics generally says that the type relaxes the use of the weak subconscious functions in the presence of the dual,

where?

[Logos]

where?

You know, here and there. But it seems conventional thinking that a type relaxes the use of their weak or less-confident subconscious functions when in the presence of their dual, since the presence of the dual means that their function-seeking is satisfied by their presence. Why produce a weak light when there is a stronger light in the room? The assumption is that if both duals play to their theoretical strengths then there is little need to emphasize the continued use of their weak functions. I know that we continually use all of our functions, but that is still the basic idea.

[tcaudilllg]

You know, here and there. But it seems conventional thinking that a type relaxes the use of their weak or less-confident subconscious functions when in the presence of their dual, since the presence of the dual means that their function-seeking is satisfied by their presence. Why produce a weak light when there is a stronger light in the room? The assumption is that if both duals play to their theoretical strengths then there is little need to emphasize the continued use of their weak functions. I know that we continually use all of our functions, but that is still the basic idea.

How the hell do you cognize something without using the IM element required for it? It makes no sense.

[tcaudilllg]

^I don't know... I don't seem to resonate with the idea of "producing values."

Then how do you help people? How do you try to be useful socially?

[tcaudilllg]

Allow me to refine the question. What I meant to ask with this poll was not whether or not you are confident in your capacity to assist your dual in new and novel ways -- but rather, are you confident that your use of your functions will certainly be of assistance to your dual whether or not you are in active contact with them. What I'm asking is, how good is your inner dual simulator function? Do you have enough self-awareness of your dual's needs to assuredly be of benefit to them?

[reyn_til_runa]

You know, here and there. But it seems conventional thinking that a type relaxes the use of their weak or less-confident subconscious functions when in the presence of their dual, since the presence of the dual means that their function-seeking is satisfied by their presence. Why produce a weak light when there is a stronger light in the room? The assumption is that if both duals play to their theoretical strengths then there is little need to emphasize the continued use of their weak functions. I know that we continually use all of our functions, but that is still the basic idea.

i think i get what you mean. i do know an ESFp girl very well, work together, and so forth.

i would say: we play to our theoretical strengths, without going overboard. there is a definite feeling of "temperance" if that makes sense. her Ni dual seeking is very obvious, and so we connect on that level. sometimes she talks about liking psychics and other paranormal stuff which makes me go "hm, im not sure about that stuff, tell me about it" instead of "blah blah blah scientific rigor blah blah blah scientific rigor..." which would probably slightly amuse her, but wouldn't encourage a real conversation. i mean, i am interested to know about her experiences, what she learns and so on, but haven't ever gone to a psychic and probably wouldn't. so i find myself naturally talking to her about her visits to the psychic, and in the meantime, i think her Ni dual seeking is satisfied. she keeps telling me to watch/listen to The Secret. she claims to have never really read a book, but says that she listened to the tape and it changed her life. this is fucking adorable.

she will occasionally call herself "stupid" because she doesnt read books. she sees that i read many books. i have never, and never would, play on this perceived weakness of hers. it wouldnt cross my mind to say something like "well maybe you should start reading" because i know it wont help her. what she needs to hear is "well you are street smart. you are emotionally intelligent. and you know a lot of things that you cant read in books. i respect that, etc....you teach me stuff." she seems to feel better. i have encouraged her to go back to school ONLY BECAUSE she has made it clear to me that she wants to. if certain other people i know were to call themselves stupid for not reading books, i would probably set a stack in front of them and say "start here." its just my way.


i am not at all apt to feeling so vulnerable in weaker functions. i find myself more lighthearted, less worried about stuff, less analytical, but "myself" nonetheless. i kind of seem like an older, milder, wiser, more effective version of me. (you know how people say that as you get old, you sometimes become more temperate). she actually can make me laugh and not be able to stop. she does funny voices when answering the phone, and as i would never in my life answer the phone that way, and because she never applies the wrong kind of pressure on me, i relax, even when confronted with some Fe, because i feel like somebody's naturally "got my back" and vice versa. i don't have to become defensive at her occasional theatrics because her particular Fe is funny and non threatening to me. shes not requiring a reaction.

oh yeah, she also has taken my garbage out without rubbing it in my face that its been sitting there for weeks. she makes little jokes about my need for Se, but not in a way that offends. actually, what would make me very uncomfortable, and what she does not do, is to say "aw, can i help you with the garbage? i would be happy to. its no problem at all. i can see you could use a hand..." <--- ugh. because its a question, and because the person acts like i am in need of help and comfort, of course i will say "no i dont need help" and become a little defensive about it.

actually now im not sure i answered the question.

[marooned]

Then how do you help people? How do you try to be useful socially?

I don't know how to answer this question. Reading your refined version of the initial question, I think part of the problem is that I don't think I've spent any considerable time with anyone who I think might be my "dual." I simply do not know.

[Logos]

How the hell do you cognize something without using the IM element required for it? It makes no sense.

I don't think that you're following me here, because no where do I say that we shut off our functions when using the IM element required for it.

[liveandletlive]

i think i get what you mean. i do know an ESFp girl very well, work together, and so forth.

i would say: we play to our theoretical strengths, without going overboard. there is a definite feeling of "temperance" if that makes sense. her Ni dual seeking is very obvious, and so we connect on that level. sometimes she talks about liking psychics and other paranormal stuff which makes me go "hm, im not sure about that stuff, tell me about it" instead of "blah blah blah scientific rigor blah blah blah scientific rigor..." which would probably slightly amuse her, but wouldn't encourage a real conversation. i mean, i am interested to know about her experiences, what she learns and so on, but haven't ever gone to a psychic and probably wouldn't. so i find myself naturally talking to her about her visits to the psychic, and in the meantime, i think her Ni dual seeking is satisfied. she keeps telling me to watch/listen to The Secret. she claims to have never really read a book, but says that she listened to the tape and it changed her life. this is fucking adorable.

she will occasionally call herself "stupid" because she doesnt read books. she sees that i read many books. i have never, and never would, play on this perceived weakness of hers. it wouldnt cross my mind to say something like "well maybe you should start reading" because i know it wont help her. what she needs to hear is "well you are street smart. you are emotionally intelligent. and you know a lot of things that you cant read in books. i respect that, etc....you teach me stuff." she seems to feel better. i have encouraged her to go back to school ONLY BECAUSE she has made it clear to me that she wants to. if certain other people i know were to call themselves stupid for not reading books, i would probably set a stack in front of them and say "start here." its just my way.


i am not at all apt to feeling so vulnerable in weaker functions. i find myself more lighthearted, less worried about stuff, less analytical, but "myself" nonetheless. i kind of seem like an older, milder, wiser, more effective version of me. (you know how people say that as you get old, you sometimes become more temperate). she actually can make me laugh and not be able to stop. she does funny voices when answering the phone, and as i would never in my life answer the phone that way, and because she never applies the wrong kind of pressure on me, i relax, even when confronted with some Fe, because i feel like somebody's naturally "got my back" and vice versa. i don't have to become defensive at her occasional theatrics because her particular Fe is funny and non threatening to me. shes not requiring a reaction.

oh yeah, she also has taken my garbage out without rubbing it in my face that its been sitting there for weeks. she makes little jokes about my need for Se, but not in a way that offends. actually, what would make me very uncomfortable, and what she does not do, is to say "aw, can i help you with the garbage? i would be happy to. its no problem at all. i can see you could use a hand..." <--- ugh. because its a question, and because the person acts like i am in need of help and comfort, of course i will say "no i dont need help" and become a little defensive about it.

actually now im not sure i answered the question.

that post tugged at my heart strings so much i actually started crying- u guys are the best <3

btw, if u ever decide to switch your main course from hot dogs to tacos give me a call

[reyn_til_runa]

that post tugged at my heart strings so much i actually started crying- u guys are the best <3

btw, if u ever decide to switch your main course from hot dogs to tacos give me a call

i cant believe it took me that long to get the joke. ok, np.

[tcaudilllg]

The question I'm asking is this: do you (consciously) use your creative function to supplant your hidden agenda? Do you figure that this supplamentation will empower your suggestive function and thus, reinforce your base function? This is the essence of my question: do you purposefully think of new and novel ways to use your functions to help their duals?

I'm asking because I do, and yet I find that quality lacking in others. Not every INTj out there seems concerned, from my perspective, with developing new and novel ways to influence their dual function; in fact, far too many seem more concerned with the dangers such thought may unleash.

An example is Craig Venter: the guy has figured out how to structure his own genome (Ti), by which means he intends to create a new form of life. (Fe) Ti is influencing Fe, and people are scared to death about it. It's using stuff you know to affect stuff that you don't, and then finding out what will come of it. There is a very noble rationale behind this blind, plausibly reckless experiment: what comes of it could be used to treat Si, thereby bettering a person's health. So this Ne possibility of creating a new genome was produced with Si in mind. ...Now that doesn't mean he's INTj, of couse; just that I myself most easily see his goal as being the offering of something to Si. But there you go: the benefits to Si outweigh the risks to say, Fi, and I am in support of his research.

I'm not saying that people who "think big" are better than those who "think safe". Quite the contrary, because broader does not mean "smarter". From my own introspection, I observe that although I determine the best course of action to avoid trouble pretty easily, I tend to give this lower priority to the potential of making the world a bit better than it already is, by means of a novel idea or by making a stand for my own ideas regardless of the retaliation. My girlfriend is a novel thinker, but she can't dodge a problem to save her life, and her anxiety over this prevents her from standing up for her ideas. I see a lot of people on this forum (like Diana, for example) who I would argue have the same problem.

The question of where we spend what energy we have is important. Diana may not have the strength inside her to stand up for her beliefs at the risk of no-one else following her, but it is likely that she produces even more -- and perhaps, better -- ideas than an ISFj who was both creator and leader; we just never see them have impact, because they could create problems and Diana doesn't want to take responsibility for them. The ISFj creator/leader is willing to avoid good ideas that seem not to promise a net gain given the current conditions. In the end though, Diana has more ideas because she has the freedom to speculate. She would also probably be willing to follow a leader who has similar ideas.

The non-creator leader is more cautious than the creator/leader, and so avoids getting into trouble earlier. This is the kind of person who gets all A's on their report card, because they tend to stick with what they know works and is safe in their private activities, and in our culture that includes getting in college; getting a good job; and moving up the ranks. These are also the Little League softball coaches; the office managers; the board room advisors; and other positions of responsibility whose demands are well understood. The non-creator leader has a better sense of just how wrong things could get than the creator/leader because they are devoting ALL of their time to it as opposed to the creator/leader's divided attention between creativity and leadership, just as the creator/non-leader has a better sense of what a creative work really means. For this reason a creator/leader will tend to have around them a cluster of non-creator leaders, each of which seems to have expertise in one area of the many that are necessary to acheive the creator/leader's vision. (at the risk of inflaming opinion... I do see this phenomenon in how some people here talk to me... Logos and UDP both tend to have an impulse to lead, but not necessarily for trailblazing that I can tell.... They do seem to be "advising" me a lot, as though they think I need "taken care of" somehow or otherwise need to be "handled".)

[tcaudilllg]

Maybe you should provide an example.

Arrgh... nevermind.

[marooned]

Wait, don't be discouraged!

My musings....

Use creative fct to supplant HA... how would Fe supplant Ti...?

Let's just say it does... okay, next... with Ti overcome by Fe, this powers Se...

Then that flows back and reinforces Ni

Then Ni flows into Fe

Excpet when it doesn't, it flows into Ti

when it flows into Ti, what does it do?

I don't have time to read everything you wrote yet.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[tcaudilllg]

So, I suppose you could say I "don't want to take responsibility for them" if you want to look at it like that. But, in my mind it's more a matter of it's just not worth it. The time it would take to develop them where I could communicate them in an understandable fashion is much better spent on other things that make a real difference in my life.

Then, the argument could be made that you argure for the "will to live" over the "will to power". Power, territory... you don't feel it important to expand these beyond your own means. Being a leader means that you create your own strategies for confronting opposition to your goals, thus people have to take you into account when making designs of their own. A person who does not attempt to anticipate competition may. I can see though that you think openness and vulnerability is an effective strategy of its own. Someone like me, on the other hand, is of the mind for openness, but not at the expense of opening myself to attack, which I can usually see coming. Overtures like Gilly's unanticipated attack on myself and labcoat as "crackpots" a few months ago reinforce my belief that I must be on guard against other leaders. Gilly's bid was for greater harmony, which he executed by invoking -Fe against labcoat and myself, trying to choke us up with adversity. He grounded this negative energy on the principle that General discussion -- indeed, the entire forum aside from non-socionics type theories --was for classical socionics theory only, and that we were parasites who detracted from the discussion of existing socionics works and, especially, confused newcomers. This was a strategic alliance which Expat repaid on basis of his authority, and the forum has been governed by this dynamic, that I can see, up till now. Gilly wasn't sure it would work -- he couldn't have been -- but to him it was a worthy bid to realize his goal of "smoother process" between forum members. He saw us as a rouge element that detracted from the larger dynamic, and moved to quash us.

Now what am I doing by explaining this? Well, I'm seeing a lot of fragmentary logic out there, more than there needs to be given the facts that I perceive of as available. I'd like to see it less fragmented, more cohesive and structurally competant. So I offer you this observation of that which I observe to be going on, as indicated to me by that which I percieve as constant in our world between people. In this case, I observed a correlation between Jung's "projection" idea and my real-life experiences with people, specifically noting although some people seem to be warning me or thinking they have to advise me, I myself never seem to be returning the same treatment to them, and actually find myself feeling somewhat disappointed that all they have is advice that looks strikingly familiar and, while circumstantially useful, offers nothing new or particularly novel. It's almost as though I'm completely the protagonist not only of my own life, but of other lives, too. These observations were given further clarity from my speculation that there may be a "counter connection" between dual functions as there existed a connection between contraries: dual functions, I learned from labcoat, are the substance of each other, while contraries are built upon each other. (thanks to hitta) I had earlier observed that the question of whether one is aware or unaware of a function's foundations is vitally important, because if you undercut the foundation of an argument, then any who stand upon that foundation fall with it as they continue operating on the undercut precept. If, on the other hand, you observe that an argument no longer holds water, you can take evasive manuevers and respond with your own counter-argument. The problem with this thinking is that you get consumed in endless debate with no decisive movement one way or the other. (essentially, the substance of modern politics) We know that debates do end, though, and that they end usually due to the influence of one figure who makes them moot with his/her superior insight. This insight doesn't concentrate on foundations and accuracy, but on cooperation and complementarity. It is proactive rather than reactive; initiating rather than responding, an outreach that relies on a complementary hand for assistance, the substance of duality and, as we know from Augusta, the substance of man's true nature. It's way forward; literally, the way of the unconscious. The question is, are you aware of it -- do you "feel it" around you, inside of you? Are you aware of how it affects you? That's what this poll intends to ask.

[iAnnAu]

Now what am I doing by explaining this? Well, I'm seeing a lot of fragmentary logic out there, more than there needs to be given the facts that I perceive of as available. I'd like to see it less fragmented, more cohesive and structurally competant. So I offer you this observation of that which I observe to be going on, as indicated to me by that which I percieve as constant in our world between people. In this case, I observed a correlation between Jung's "projection" idea and my real-life experiences with people, specifically noting although some people seem to be warning me or thinking they have to advise me, I myself never seem to be returning the same treatment to them, and actually find myself feeling somewhat disappointed that all they have is advice that looks strikingly familiar and, while circumstantially useful, offers nothing new or particularly novel. It's almost as though I'm completely the protagonist not only of my own life, but of other lives, too. These observations were given further clarity from my speculation that there may be a "counter connection" between dual functions as there existed a connection between contraries: dual functions, I learned from labcoat, are the substance of each other, while contraries are built upon each other. (thanks to hitta) I had earlier observed that the question of whether one is aware or unaware of a function's foundations is vitally important, because if you undercut the foundation of an argument, then any who stand upon that foundation fall with it as they continue operating on the undercut precept. If, on the other hand, you observe that an argument no longer holds water, you can take evasive manuevers and respond with your own counter-argument. The problem with this thinking is that you get consumed in endless debate with no decisive movement one way or the other. (essentially, the substance of modern politics) We know that debates do end, though, and that they end usually due to the influence of one figure who makes them moot with his/her superior insight. This insight doesn't concentrate on foundations and accuracy, but on cooperation and complementarity. It is proactive rather than reactive; initiating rather than responding, an outreach that relies on a complementary hand for assistance, the substance of duality and, as we know from Augusta, the substance of man's true nature. It's way forward; literally, the way of the unconscious. The question is, are you aware of it -- do you "feel it" around you, inside of you? Are you aware of how it affects you? That's what this poll intends to ask.

Based on this, I voted. Thanks for the exposition.

[marooned]

[Exodus]

How the hell do you cognize something without using the IM element required for it? It makes no sense.

I think he's talking about outputting information, as opposed to just processing it.

I think a far more interesting question may be how a type uses the dual's own primary functions when together. While Socionics generally says that the type relaxes the use of the weak subconscious functions in the presence of the dual, I am not so sure that is necessarily the case.

I think duals make each other feel like they don't have to take responsibility for their weak functions, but that's not the same as not using (outputting) them at all.

[Joy]

There is nothing new under the sun.

[Logos]

There is nothing new under the sun.

Thank you, Qoheleth.

[marooned]

You needed a whole diagram just for that?

it's the 1st/5th function mixing tank... I can't remember why I put that there... Oh well.