a good person who's not quite right for you--not a great connection
a person of questionable character who is your dual--great connection
either one, I'm not picky
I'd rather be alone, thankyouverymuch
Relationship POLL:
Would you rather end up with a good person who's not right for you (i.e. you misunderstand each other even though they want to work things out but it often results in frustration) OR a dual who's kind of a jerk (wandering eyes, as a tendency to be selfish and inconsiderate) but with whom you get along really well and have a connection with?
IEI-Fe 4w3
I was also wondering if the jerk were dualized, if he may become less of a jerk. On the other hand, the good guy, without his dual, might become less of a good guy over time, given the frustrations inherent in the relationship. But that is pure speculation.
IEI-Fe 4w3
I hate to say it, but I think I AM this person... so, um...B...actually...we'll cancel each other out...wandering eyes, as a tendency to be selfish and inconsiderate
I had A. It didn't work.
IEE
The dual may become less of a jerk, and the good guy would make more of a consious effort to connect. Personally, I associate godliness with the latter, so I chose that one.Originally Posted by redbaron
Tbh even a dual won't be a guaranteed match if he/she isn't on a simmilar intelectual level as you. Not to mention some physical attraction and some simmilar goals.
So no, I'd rather be with a smart, nice and caring person with whom I have something in common. And above all - if we love each other.
I mean - come on. The concept of duality cannot even compare to love if there is no love in the duality.
well the question was assuming an equal physical attraction and other interests/goals.
IEI-Fe 4w3
smart girl.
IEI-Fe 4w3
I'd rather the latter*, but I think I'm more likely to wind up in the former. Realistically, aren't most people like this?
*At last in fiction, I tend to find even the really obviously antisocial ILEs really charming :x I actually started watching Star Trek: TNG because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek); provided I'm not a target for malice, I think I could survive.
From wikipedia:
In the case of the former option, I could see #5 being reached very slowly (if at all?), and I sort of wonder if Exposure is the real stumbling block, and the point at which people can wind up in unhappy or unfulfilling relationships precisely because they avoid airing their dissatisfaction or the perceived problems, ironically because they don't want things to end. That, and the worse and worse things get, the more your confidence gets hurt, or the more you get stuck thinking of the good stuff, and the more you cling to a sinking relationship (lolpuns!) Disclaimer: this is obviously just a model, and I'm thinking along the model's terms in this paragraph.Several psychological models have been proposed to explain the process of a relationship breakup. One theory, by L. Lee,[1] proposes that there are five stages leading ultimately up to a breakup:
1) Dissatisfaction — one or both partners grow dissatisfied with the relationship.
2) Exposure — both partners mutually become aware of the problems in the relationship.
3) Negotiation — both partners attempt to negotiate a solution to said problems.
4) Resolution and transformation — both partners apply the yield of their negotiation.
5) Termination — proposed resolution fails to rectify issues and no further solutions are accepted or applied.
Anyway, this is 4/10 speculation, since I can't call on many examples. Just throwing some low-quality thoughts out there.
I also think that stages 1 through 5 can keep happening over and over again, all the while becoming more aware of the dissatisfaction as various things are tried to rectify the problems. Another take on this is that one person sees problems that the other doesn't see. So you can have one person giving up while the other one is trying to solve problems. Eh, there can be an infinite variety depending on the individuals.
all of that to say that even when two good people (or, maybe there is no such thing as "good" people....) are involved, there can be major differences and dissatisfactions, regardless of intentions. I almost think you might have a better chance with your dual, even if they're selfish, pig-headed or whatever. Maybe my categories are bad though. Everyone's selfish in their own way. Everyone has issues, even if they look like "good" people on the outside. So forget this thread!
but ultimately, glam's got the right idea. (said while sitting in front of my cozy fire, alone, with a cup of tea, watching the Olympics!!)
IEI-Fe 4w3
The dual, without question.
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
Alone. I think I'm the best version of myself when I'm alone.
I've done the whole cool person you don't mesh with that well and I wouldn't do it again. I'd probably give an ILE who was a total bitch a shot for a while, but yeah, I'm pretty picky these days. Being on your own isn't so bad, most of the time.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Removed at User Request
Hey to be honest, I think we become more of a jerk to others when we dualized and spend many hours with our duals, it's like we isolated a way to live, and other ways of living becomes more foreign, and we are less accepting towards it.
(D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)
Obviously, there's a threshold either way (I wouldn't be with a conflictor for long no matter how nice she was, and I wouldn't date an SLE who was an axe murderer, for instance), but if I have to say the scale tips one way or the other, practically, it's probably the nice person (because of social judgment, my family/cultural background, etc.), but ideally, it's the dual. Because everyone's going to have faults, but duals are going to have the faults that piss you off the least, and the benefits that you like the best. And, hell, I'm not a bed of roses either, so between the two of us, we could just be sort of jerk-ish together. Hopefully time or dualization would improve both of us, but I feel like with a dual you'd have a core of mutual something that you could keep coming back to, whereas while you can have that with other types, it's (usually) not built on something that occurs on as deep of a level as socionics type.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
A. if a dual is of questionable character it won't last and it might have a bad ending. the first choice doesn't come with crazy endings when your car or apartment get vandalized, your belongings get stolen, and you're spending weeks/months in court.
I highly prioritize my own comfort and freedom. I find it hard to get into relationships regardless of whether I like the person or not- it's just too limiting, the thought.
They have to fit EXACTLY with my interests or else it will not work out. That sound strict- but part of my interests includes being explorative and not being stuck and lacking imagination- I just cannot deal with people who want to live their lives in one place and do the same thing every day just with a different flavoring. I want to entertain every idea I have and want someone who can keep up with it and maybe even help execute and plan some of the ideas I offer. I know some of them will sound insane but that's ok because I already have other ideas.
I wouldn't know where to find such a person.
I'd choose someone with a compatible personality even if they weren't my socionics dual.
I like to think of the threshold as a kind of paraboloid curve opening away from the origin. There's a certain minimum level you need of each.
I agree, it shouldn't be treated as a strict dichotomy as in the OP. Though the OP was likely a non-serious hypothetical question, I think that settling for one or the other even hypothetically is foolish. Whatever your view of morality is, I don't think that most people could stand to be with someone that is truly a horrible human being. Similarly, I don't think that it's a good idea to be with someone who is a good person but isn't compatible with you, because then you are just not maximizing the potential of the relationship. In that scenario you'd really owe it to yourself, and the other person, to find a better relationship.
I don't know about you, but in my life this question is anything but hypothetical.
Well, first off - I don't believe anybody is really 'good.' Those that think they are, are often usually almost always the most fucked up and sadistic people ever lol.
I don't want to feel unsafe in the bad way tho. I mean somebody shaking you up a little can be exciting but I don't want to date a creepy serial killer that wants to decapitate me and then throat fuck the head or whatever. As for 'questionable character' in more subtle ways idk that is way too Fi and subjective for me, much of the time what offends people isn't even really that horrible objectively, humans by nature are just way too over-sensitive. People will all too often overly exaggerate somebody's dark side because they hate/dislike the person for whatever reason and want to completely remove them from the chess board as it were. Not to say that yeah, obviously some people really are that simplistically and purely 'evil.' But the real, natural world is very morally gray whereas the establishment is trying to turn everything into black and white.
Some people have thought I was a devil incarnate (or pretended I was to advance their own political career) others viewed me as more loving/compassionate than I really am, the truth is more in the middle but that's too boring/dreary for people I suppose and most simpletons like to read the news headline of the righteous innocent victim being hurt by the purely evil 'perpetrator'. I hate that line of thinking but it does make people feel safe I suppose to neatly categorize others as good or bad.
Last edited by Hot Scalding Gayser; 12-21-2018 at 06:31 AM.
Yes and no. Only if the other dual is mature, then the "jerk" may either catch up, or lose them.
It is a misconception that Duality does not require general relationship skills. It is much easier than all the other relations besides Identity perhaps (over time), but at the end of the day, if one or both are too immature/unhealthy, it still won't work too well.
That's an interesting point. It seems to depend a lot on the health of the duals and their general attitude towards the social sphere (which can be correlated with instinctual stacking and enneagram fixes: SO last Duals might become less accepting of other kinds of personalities, especially with a 1 or 8 fix).
On the flip-side, Duality is supposed to make the individuals more valuable members to society, in the way they start employing their strengths most naturally and fitting to their personality structure. Dualized individuals might become more emotionally balanced and fulfilled over time.
I’d always choose the dual who’s a jerk up to a certain point. If we’re still together, it’s probably for a reason. Also there’s a higher possibility of growth and the ability to influence them through being together over time.
I’ve experienced the first situation and it’s really not good. It’s just like being alone but with more frustration. Connection and communication build the foundation of your relationship, not good intentions that never manifest into anything real.
Hypothetically of course if said dual was truly a huge jerk and would never improve even over a long period of time (or if we’re simply duals who aren’t that compatible for other reasons), then I’d choose a less ideal ITR where we’re really compatible. I rate the kindred and business relationships I’ve been in recently as being around 8-8.5 out of 10. Sometimes they have reached 10. But I don’t know about years and years of interaction either with these.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
