# Thread: What is duality?

1. ## What is duality?

I think duality serves two purposes:
1) the material which is processed to expand the content of a function
2) due to 1), a determinant of attention given.

If I want to put together a Ti structure, then I will need to make connections between objects. To make these connections I need six things: 1) to signal (+Fe) between the objects that I want to connect; 2) to know what either object wants (+Fi) so as to facilitate the acceptance (-Fe) of their mutual connection; 3) the impartation of a constant flow (Te) of signals between the objects, so that a change in the relations of one will mean a change in the relations of another (thus creating a cause-effect relationship); 4) the imposition of a regulatory mechanism (-Fi) that restrains the objects from interacting with objects outside of the pair and possibly breaking the bond.

Before anything else happens, one must assume that there is a signal and acceptance of the same; otherwise there is no medium across which the signal may propogate. We say that the cause of an electromagnet is the exchange of electrons between poles. The substance of that relationship, therefore, is a constant exchange of Fe aspects. (electrons) The effect is magnetism, a connection between the two poles. When there exists a steady flow of energy between two objects, we say they are connected.

In general, we can say that a given aspect exists as a factor of its dual. It is important to note that an aspects can exist as a factor of an aspect dual to it, but the dual aspect need not exist due to the aspect it factors.

An electromagnetic field exists due to the exchange of electrons between poles of a conductive substance. The exchange of electrons within the field, although invariably an effect of magnetism, need not be stimulated due to the same electromagnetic field, however. (although the field can impede the exchange)

2. Duality is an intertype relation based two types with functions arranged in a certain order.

In model A terms, functions 1&2 of each different type are the functions 5&6 of the other, respectively.

3. I have

I'm not so good at the

Dual has what I need. I have what dual needs. Everybody wins.

4. In terms of information elements, each end of an axis provides opposite information. For example:

Ti: external statics of fields
Fe: internal dynamics of objects

Together they see every one of the components that make up the information aspects. They balance each other out in this manner. In terms of Model A, this works out well because Ti is going to be the same function for a person as Fe is for their dual. Take Alpha rationals, for example:

1st function: Ti/Fe
2nd function: Ne/Si
3rd function: Fi/Te
4th function: Se/Ni
5th function: Fe/Ti
6th function: Si/Ne
7th function: Te/Fi
8th function: Ni/Se

5. Or perhaps:

1st and 5th: Ti/Fe
2nd and 6th: Ne/Si
3rd and 7th: Fi/Te
4th and 8th: Se/Ni

6. It's necessary in order to the theory to work.

7. The fact that the axes consist of either rational or irrational elements.

8. Think of the problems you run into in life as jig-saw puzzles.

Knowing that you are strong at a certain function block means having confidence that you will solve the puzzle, IF all the pieces are given to you.

Being around your dual means knowing for sure that all of the pieces will also be found.

The process of "drudging" that we all go through in undualized life, is an attempt on our part to arrange our surroundings to have them "simulate" our duals' influence.

IMO this is more noticeable on the slave type level than on the master type level, though. Information of the slave dual kind is information that we stock up on when we do research into the practical problems that plague us.

9. Originally Posted by labcoat
Think of the problems you run into in life as jig-saw puzzles.

Knowing that you are strong at a certain function block means having confidence that you will solve the puzzle, IF all the pieces are given to you.

Being around your dual means knowing for sure that all of the pieces will also be found.

The process of "drudging" that we all go through in undualized life, is an attempt on our part to arrange our surroundings to have them "simulate" our duals' influence.

IMO this is more noticeable on the slave type level than on the master type level, though. Information of the slave dual kind is information that we stock up on when we do research into the practical problems that plague us.
You are so good at this.

You say that a dual function provides the pieces that are arranged by the function receiving the duality. That makes sense: Ti needs Fe to know whether or not a given connection is possible. If either object does not accept the signal of the other, then no connection can be made. It would seem then that two dual aspects are needed for every single aspect of a given function. Object A must accept Object B; Object B must accept object A. If Object A does not accept Object B, no connection; if Object B does not accept Object A, no connection.

If Object A accepts Object B, then there is a connection with respect to B, but not necessarily to A. A connection with respect to a single object is +Ti. A connection with respect to both objects is -Ti.

I'm getting the sense that dual functions should not be considered without each other. There is no "connection"; only a signal whose acceptance is indicative of a connection. +Ti reduces into +Fe sending a signal accepted by -Fe. Where there is a unity of signs between forms of a given aspect, there is also the aspect dual to it.

10. Originally Posted by Carla
General question: Why physics analogies?
Because it's not very easy for me to think of people in abstract terms. Physical principles are much better suited to the task.

Although, maybe there is an even better analogy. Consider the transmission of neurotransmitters between neurons. If the sending neuron's neutrotransmittors (the +Fe aspects) do not fit the recepticles (-Fe) of the receiving neuron, then no neurotransmission is accomplished and the synaps (Ti) fails.

But isn't that a thought-- must not neurons share a mutual connection for the exchange of information between them to be even?

11. Originally Posted by ifmd95
What if everyone used their favorite analogy? (others have been used on this forum too, like the Carnot cycle.) Since we're on a Socionics forum, where people may have different backgrounds but are the same in their interest in personality theory -- myself I just try to master using Socionics and Jungian terminology in my explanations.

And to be clear (as it's been brought up a number of times in a number of places), I don't think any analogy is a perfect substitute for empirical research of the brain. It's too easy to choose the wrong premises for any model, to not verify the model otherwise. In the mean time though, it may be of use to expand model and see how the expansions can fit the limited evidence had already. (type descriptions, self-report data.)
What is "empirical research" when it comes to personality? That seems an oxymoron: there are people like me who specialize in the analysis of personality, and there are others who are less certain of it. Honestly I don't think that the functions correlate directly to any one thing in the brain; rather, I think they are as we consider them: kinds of relations. Should there be an Ni relation between neurons of a given kind, then that's where the Ni is in the mind. The functions are principles, factors of mathematical necessity. We will never "find" the functions anywhere in the neurons of the mind, because they exist relationally.

The question as I see it, is which neurons relate to which other neurons and how so.

The information aspects can only be understood by analogy.

12. Originally Posted by ifmd95
Different structures and different variations of those structures may correspond to different Jungian strengths, values, and temperaments.

This is already know to happen with some conventional definitions of temperament and cognitive abilities -- empirical psychology has been unravelling attention span, impulse controls, and a number of different "intelligences". Some of these such as "general intelligence" are probably too broad to have Jungian correlations. Others such as "emotional intelligence" may be more related.

Jungian type descriptions themselves note some physiological correlates, whether the sensing functions or VI.

It is already known that mood has biological and chemical basis in neurotransmitters. "Psychological compatability" with different types of individuals, information, and environment could be researched here, as they relate to the well-being of the individual.

Your interests in lifelong development could be empirically scrutinized with lifelong studies of whatever biological correlations are found.
True, but I would personally rather people assumed my presumptions, to the extent that they have logical validity, be taken as unproven fact; the attention should be given not to proving the case, but for finding a cure to the trouble. There are many people like Heath Ledger out there whose psychological journey ends in a sort of suicide. Or do you think the problem would be easier to cope with if it were empirically proven?

What's important is finding a means for the afflicted to cope with their destiny.

If you were destined to die, by virtue of your genes, before your 23rd birthday; or your 40th; or your 60th... would you want to know? Would you want people even researching the means of your death, if there is almost certainly no cure short of rewriting your entire DNA? I'm not sure how to deal with this kind of thing, or how society would deal with the knowledge. I'm going to concentrate on explaining immanance as a phenomenon which affects us.

The movie Legends of the Fall treats the problem of destiny as "the deep, dark secrets of the soul". Our society certainly appraises the exertion ENFj worldview as something mostly too dark to speak of.

13. Originally Posted by ifmd95
I don't really know what to say to that, as I don't really understand your aims. What I will say, is that while there may be more personal and subjective applications for psychology -- you might still be using something like a Ouija Board to do them, if not for the integrity of ongoing empirical research.
I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that cognitive psychology is not my forte, and I'll leave the neuroscience to them. It's a better strategy to publish my considerations in a peer reviewed journal, and to make cognitive science aware of them, than to essentially dillute my energy in a lab doing work I do not enjoy. That energy is better spent fleshing out the ideas.

You do know that there is very little we can do about neurology, right? There are no "cures" for hereditary neurological disease. But on the other hand, the archetypal "subpersons" do seem to play a role in some forms of schizophrenia.

Here's what I don't underdstand imfd95: how would finding neuron correlates to the functions be "empirical"? There are so many of those things, that it seems imposible to grasp intellectually. How can you generalize swarm movements into forms of thinking? You cannot, because it is the mere factor of relation which acoounts for consciousness. Space and consciousness are two completely different things. Conscious is dynamical, not mechanical.

14. Originally Posted by Joy
The fact that the axes consist of either rational or irrational elements.
The point is, they only "balance each other out" in some respects; they reinforce each other in others. (oops: I see ifmd already pointed this out)

15. Originally Posted by ifmd95
Anti-depressants have reversed depression in some cases where hours of talk-therapy was in vain. Pharmacological treatments aside, if it weren't for quantitative analysis of multiple patients' progress – psychologists might still be using more primitive psychoanalysis techniques where instead "cognitive therapy" talk has proven more effective. Your considerations aren't the first of their kind and they probably won't be the last. And sometimes empiricism can cut through the flawed choices of deductions faster and with more certainty than any argument. You have an entire lifetime to do both. Or later in a career you could corroborate the findings with an empirical specialist. But to go it alone seems all too risky outside of purer deductions (the maths of Reinin dichotomies, dimensionality, etc.)

It is not necessarily "neuron correlates". Broad measures of activity in different brain regions, hormone and neurotransmitter levels, among other physiological reactions could be considered. Additionally there could be tests of skill. To my knowledge it hasn't even been verified, if strengths and values in reality fit the models (much less your suggestions for lifelong development.) "Psychological compatability" overall remains speculative, verification mostly in self-report data.
Well I never intended to go it alone. That's not my style. I agree that the psychological compatibility concept is problematic in as far as socionics considers it. But I think that a person who marries outside their own psychic domain is incapable of genuinely caring about their partner, and is headed for divorce in most cases.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•