It's all in how they do/say it, right?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Help me out here. It seems like this socionics thing isn't based on mental states leading up to similiar lifestyles but more like, how we simply say and go about things.

For example, even if you agree with what they're saying, your conflictor would rub you the wrong way. But if your dual disagrees with you they would do it in a way where you would still keep the peace and be able to have a positive relationship.

You also don't even have to have anything in common for it to work, because the 'how you go about things' part is so seductive, you'd build a relationship anyway. Besides, you don't necessarily fancy a person just because you do things with them, correct?

I thought about this, and a person doesn't have to have anything in common with me, it's just I better like how they go about things and how they carry themselves. I don't like or dislike a person based on what they do unless it's something that I really think is morally wrong.

If this seems like a big 'duh' to people and all, that's fine. But just tell me if I'm generally right or not. I think it's more about how you mesh with people's quirks, that's the thing that build's chemistry.

I mean attitude, personality- that's what it is all about. We can do diff things and have our own lives, we need that, but they need to behave/carry themselves in a way that speaks to my soul when we interact. So liking somebody similiar OR different is irrelevant either way to me. It's not about similarities or differences lining up and clashing, I don't think.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

For example, the reason why Expat bugs me so much is not the things he says, it's because there doesn't seem to be the right kind of emotion or attitude in his voice. We might agree on everything and want the same sort of lifestyle... and everything else might match perfectly, but everything would fall apart because of that one little thing.

It's really the only thing that matters when dealing with human relationships I think. Of course you might not like it if somebody always criticizes you but realistically I don't think that ever happens. ((And if it is man lol what are they doing in a relationship where they're not being supported for just the way they are))

[force my hand]

In many cases it probably is more about the method than the message. For one, I can tell right off we have two different ways of approaching things. It doesn't bother me for the purpose of the forum, as I also enjoy reading your stuff, but I can see how our relations would chafe in real life interaction.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

This is just how I express myself through writing though. I could try to explain how I act in real life but that would be hard as I'd have to try and be as accurate and possible and really comprehend myself, which I'm not sure I do yet. Besides I think it would be the same way as online, just a less exaggerated version of it. It all comes from my same brain so over time my relaxed 'online state' would come out anyway.

[Joy]

Sure, two people can say essentially the same thing to a person and get two different responses, based on how they said it.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

But it's the general gist of socionics though? And also the general reason why we like or dislike a person. In the end I think disliking a person for anything else doesn't make much sense and would end up hurting your relationships, though I know realistically people are going to cut each other off for the weirdest of reasons.

[Joy]

There's another very important dichotomy that comes to mind. It has to do with wellness. Misery loves company and whatnot. Also, a relationship can only be as healthy as the least healthy person in it (so healthy people are naturally attracted to other healthy people). There are other things that matter, too, such as cultural interests, demographics, etc.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

There's another very important dichotomy that comes to mind. It has to do with wellness (misery loves company and whatnot).

??? That's not a dichotomy, that's two of the same things. Misery/misery. Or you meant wellness and misery?

There are other things that matter, too, such as cultural interests, demographics, etc.

I don't like or dislike a person based on cultural interests, but their attitude of said cultures. Arrogance about one's culture annoys me, but I want them to feel good about it (and process that good feeling in a way that I like). Demographics I understand. A 50-year-old man shouldn't be interacting with 12-year-old girls even if they are duals lol.

The only two things that's relevant in how I get along with somebody are: (a. they don't criticize me too much (or criticize me for things I don't feel need changing or feel that I can change) and (b. they go about things in a way that is compatible with mine; they simply say/do things the right way.

Oh umm and also, they can't smell funny/weird. I don't care about looks, but you have to smell right.

[Joy]

??? That's not a dichotomy, that's two of the same things. Misery/misery. Or you meant wellness and misery?

Wellness and the lack of wellness (which could be described as misery).

I don't like or dislike a person based on cultural interests, but their attitude of said cultures. Arrogance about one's culture annoys me, but I want them to feel good about it (and process that good feeling in a way that I like). Demographics I understand. A 50-year-old man shouldn't be interacting with 12-year-old girls even if they are duals lol.

The only two things that's relevant in how I get along with somebody are: (a. they don't criticize me too much (or criticize me for things I don't feel need changing or feel that I can change) and (b. they go about things in a way that is compatible with mine; they simply say/do things the right way.

Oh umm and also, they can't smell funny/weird. I don't care about looks, but you have to smell right.

[Joy]

And what of people who spend [or prefer to spend] their worst hours alone?

Are we talking about days, weeks, or years?

Also, I've read of people who percieved a relationship as satisfactory without realizing how unsatisfied the partner is.

Sure, that can happen even if both partners are in a similar place in terms of wellness.

I've heard of people attracted to relationships where they help someone seemingly worse off than themselves.

There's a difference between "better off" and wellness. What you're describing is codependence.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about relationships and I can't imagine how you could even remotely verify them all. Maybe experience has verified them to you. But maybe your experience isn't a universally applicable one.

I could always be wrong about anything... the concept that healthy people are attracted to other healthy people and unhealthy people are attracted to other unhealthy people is one that I'm extremely confident in, however. I suppose different people define health and wellness in different ways though, as your codependency example points out.

[Joy]

I was using "hours" figuratively, but I don't see why it couldn't be longer than that. One anecdote that comes to mind are those "return to nature" stories, where at the very least someone might spend several weeks on a secluded hike.

I didn't mean that all unwell people are going to enter relationships with other unwell people. I meant that if an unwell person enters a relationship, it will be with another unwell person.

Of course, there are always situations in which people get into relationships without realizing how unwell the other person is. In a situation like that, a large "wellness gap" between them couldn't exist for very long within the relationship.

Similarly, when one person in an existing relationship becomes significantly more well/unwell than the other and the other doesn't change, chances are good that they won't stay together. There are exceptions to this of course... such as in situations where they stay married for external reasons. Even if they stay married, however, the relationship will still fall apart within the marriage.

You would know a lot about defining things. You've done more of that in reply than justify the existing concepts in question.

What kind of justification are you looking for? You're free to agree or disagree with my observations/understanding.

[Joy]

Myself, I was thinking of this idiom you used --



It's a bit difficult for that to apply if instead the person prefers to be alone.

You're right, I didn't leave much room for the possibility that someone wouldn't want a partner. While I know that there are people like that, it hadn't crossed my mind when I wrote that post. It is something I've considered as it relates to this idea though.

To the best of my knowledge, this "wellness" isn't something you can observe as shapes and colors or read on meters and gauges. It's an interpretation of the observations and some interpretations have more merit than others. Something else I'm free to do is prod your interpretations to see if I can flesh out any of that merit. As it is, you seem to be justifying "wellness" rather circularly -- your anecdote a reiteration of your definition.

So you do want to me further define wellness then?

Wellness means different things to different people in different situations. Generally though I'd say that wellness and unwellness are often related to some of the following characteristics:

unwellness: psychosis, stagnation or regression, overall state of one of frustration, unease, boredom, anger, depression, and/or anxiety

wellness: personal growth (not to be confused with social or financial growth, though they can result from personal growth), overall state of fulfillment, joy, peace, etc.

Obviously there are degrees of wellness and unwellness. Someone whose overall state is one of boredom and unease isn't as unwell as someone whose overall state is one of catatonic schizophrenia. The idea isn't to put people into one of two categories.

Let's say that that there's a scale of wellness... the most unwell being 1 and most well being 10. A person whose typical state is somewhere between 1 and 3 isn't going to be in a relationship with someone whose typical state is somewhere between 8 and 10. Someone whose typical state is somewhere between 4 and 6 could be with someone whose typical state is between 5 and 7 though, for example. I don't like to put it like that though because like you said, there aren't any meters or gauges for this sort of thing.

[FDG]

I could always be wrong about anything... the concept that healthy people are attracted to other healthy people and unhealthy people are attracted to other unhealthy people is one that I'm extremely confident in, however. I suppose different people define health and wellness in different ways though, as your codependency example points out.

There's always the option that signalling level of health might not be so easy, especially without any former trial.

Here's an interesting game theory paper on the matter, but I don't know if you can access it:

http://ratio.huji.ac.il/dp_files/dp483.pdf

[Joy]

What I don't understand is why your definition (however much you've furthered it) necessarily repells its opposite. Perhaps to you this is something self-evident and I should be in agreement upon reading the definition. But to me, I am seeing something as variable as the distribution of social or financial abilities among different couples.

Why can't someone able at wellness be interested in sharing this with someone less well? To pose a more negative situation, why can't someone who feels this wellness have shortcomings elsewhere (say in detecting someone else's wellness) in such a way that they stick with the unwell, thinking everything is fine?

Even if they can't tell initially, it will become apparent over time in their interactions. Healthy people set boundaries (whether they realize they're doing it or not). Most unhealthy people cross those boundaries in some way. Alternatively, they may not do much of anything, in which case they will fail to give the healthy person what he/she needs/wants out of a relationship.

The bottom line is that healthy people generally will not tolerate being in an unhealthy relationship.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I could always be wrong about anything... the concept that healthy people are attracted to other healthy people and unhealthy people are attracted to other unhealthy people is one that I'm extremely confident in, however.

But Joy, I'm not so sure about this. I think unhealthy people aren't attractive to anybody. If you mean ACTUALLY unhealthy as in a real, physical illness... If you are talking about some sort of abstract psychological well-being, well that is too varied to really mean anything since no therapist can ever agree on the same diagnosis for one patient.

I saw many different quacks and they all said I had something different. So I became convinced there was nothing wrong with me at all, just mere perceptions. And also my insatiable thirst for self-discovery but this isn't ever really a problem for me, I'm just super curious.

Nobody wants to fuck/be romantic with a cancer patient or somebody really sick, and for good reason.

Healthy people are attracted to healthy people, but that is really too vague to mean anything. I think in heterosexuals, they are attracted to people with different immune systems than them (a more vulnerable immune system is attracted to a better one and vice-versa), but I don't think this is true for gay men. If you have a mix of the two genes- you're able to have the best variety or something, so from a total making kids standpoint this makes the best sense.

[Joy]

It seems it's time to agree to disagree.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Or maybe you could better explain on what it means to actually be healthy. You have to use concrete examples here or all of this is just meaningless.

I'm just talking. I could possibly change my mind if I could better understand what it is you're actually trying to say. How can we agree to disagree when you're not explaining yourself as well as you could be?

[Joy]

Or maybe you could better explain on what it means to actually be healthy. You have to use concrete examples here or all of this is just meaningless.

I'm just talking. I could possibly change my mind if I could better understand what it is you're actually trying to say. How can we agree to disagree when you're not explaining yourself as well as you could be?

Sorry, that was more addressed to ifmd95. It sounded like you hold the same general opinions that ifmd95 does though.

What I was talking about was more about abstract psychological well-being (as you put it) than biology, but I do believe that one's physical state is a direct result of his/her mental state.

I'm not sure I can define this much better than I have already attempted to. Perhaps an example will help?

If two people get into a relationship and it turns out that one of them is miserable and argumentative. If the other individual is extremely healthy/well, (s)he will naturally set boundaries. (S)he will not sink to a lower level of wellness to satisfy his/her partner's need for arguments. Either the well partner will leave because (s)he does not wish to be in a situation that's so disharmonious or the unwell partner will leave because (s)he is not getting the type of stimulation (s)he's looking for.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Ah. Okay thanks, I understand a little better.

But me I think setting boundaries are overrated... I don't like to set boundaries, but I like them to slowly fall in place over time until there is no boundaries whatsoever, we become soulmates and completely united you know. But I like that to happen organically overtime. So there's lots of boundaries in the beginning, but then they just begin to fade and fade. I realize this is umm romantcizied but I can't help it, it's the way I need things to be. However most people in life aren't gonna be like that so you have your psycological distances that create problems.

It's really weird though it's like we instantly create and destroy boundaries every day. We constantly push and pull away from another person.

We all need to argue to a point, but no couple should be fighting a lot. However they are mere challenges to grow.

[FDG]

Then of course there must be some sort of accurate input, processing, and output on a basic perceptual level (the five senses, cognition) for any of this to relate to reality. One thing I wouldn't consider requisite is a constant "fulfillment, joy, peace". Throughout most of the day, I am just content to keep the shit from hitting the fan, and many other functioning individuals I know seem similar. But I seldom feel depressed, either. (I am probably one of those midpoint people most of the time.) I cheer up pretty easily though.

Yeah I mean. Peace, okay. Fulfillment, a bit too abstract, I doubt most people feel "fulfilled" all the time - it sounds like it could potentially lead to stagnation. Joy - sometimes - I don't know if Joy could be defined as Joy if it were a baseline condition

but I do believe that one's physical state is a direct result of his/her mental state.

This doesn't seem to hold true for many, many cases. The reverse could be just as well be correct, and we'd have no way to test either hypothesis. I know some cyclists that probably could be considered incredibly healthy bodily-wise but that are always very competitive and angry.

[FDG]

Why would an healthy person set boundaries? Before having been in a relationship with an unhealthy girl, I didn't even know what "boundaries" were. Did that make me unhealthy? I doubt it.

[marooned]

.. .. ... .

[Joy]

On negative emotions: I wasn't so much referring to emotions as I was to overall state.

On boundaries: Setting boundaries isn't necessarily something one should think about and do consciously. It's just the natural result of interacting with people. We teach them how to treat us and where boundaries are through our behavior.

[marooned]

.. .... .. .

[dbmmama]

That's what it is... thinking about health in a more holistic way. So it's not just your past experiences, your conditioning, your behaviors, you level of anxiety, bla, bla, bla... It's your environment, the people in your life, your activities, what you eat, your sleep... all these little factors.. So if you tackle them all, I would imagine a person might be able to improve rather quickly... I mean they say it only takes about 30 days to establish new habits and routines right? And habits and routines are "conditioning." So under the right circumstances you could techinically "re-condition" yourself in 30 days. The problem is that "unhealthy" people do not know what is healthy and what isn't so they wouldn't know how to recondition themselves (they would need help), and even a lot of "healthy" people may not know either.. they may just have been raised in a healthy way and not really think about it too much.

i'm of the mindset that if/when i focus on "healthy" even if i don't know exactly what is needed within myself to be "healthy", "healthy" will show up on my path and then i listen to what my inner voice tells me to do to follow it toward "healthy."