Functional Duality

[DividedsGhost]

Please help. I've been going over the validity of Socionics, and as far as I am at currently, the eight functions seem adequate to encompass all thoughts and actions of human behavior.

But function duality doesn't seem as consistent for me.

Basically I can understand

Te-Fi -> Better Te (organizing and getting results) helps create Fi (beneficial relationships between people) and better Fi then also helps create Te (people are willing to help each other).

Ni-Se -> Good Ni (understanding of events) minimizes or reduces waste of Se (confronting everything head-on), and good Se minimizes or reduces waste of over-thinking how events play out. Maybe, in the case of irrational functions, it isn't as much about boosting each other (like with Te-Fi), as much as it is about helping each other not overdue their irrational nature.

But I'm not as sure about the other four.
Si-Ne -> Good Ne (thorough exploration of the world) helps expand the amount of Si? And good Si (calm, healthy, stabilized enjoyment of the world) helps Ne relax from relentless exploring and enjoy what is learned and known?

Fe-Ti -> Good Fe (understanding and organization of the people of the world) helps Ti make affective and effective judgements? And good Ti (reasoning and principles) can help Fe understand more ways to understand and manage people?

P.S. When I talk about effective judgements I'm talking about the nature of Ti indirectly taking an action by determining what not to do to maximize enjoyment (and I assume positive emotions is to be taken as that enjoyment).

Is this pretty much the basis for functional duality?

[EyeSeeCold]

There are different ways you can approach this:

Aspectonics
Romance styles(extended)
Personal/self-development
Social(relationships)
Abstract(IM elements)

Which is it?

[DividedsGhost]

Don't Like(too anecdotal) - Aspectonics
Don't Like(too anecdotal) - Romance styles(extended)
Don't Like(too anecdotal) - Personal/self-development


Might Like - Social(relationships)
Might Like - Abstract(IM elements)

What are your favorite link(s), article(s), or thread(s) for these? I think this could help, but I'll wait to see if you post anything so I can save time having to search through blatantly inconsistent and anecdotal information (for some reason mosts posts consist of people implicitly thinking this will help understand anything , or I guess it's just to have fun and socialize on the forum a bit, which I can relate to).

But, over breakfast, I think I've come up with an adequate resolution for Ti-Fe duality though. Since Ti is about basing reason on principles and essentially deciding what not to do or how not to proceed (not to be confused with Ni that is an estimating function, but is incapable of deciding anything), given a set of states and postulates, Fe helps guide the principles for the reason to be based on by giving interpretations and understandings of the people in the world, giving Ti less mentally excluding work. And Ti helps guide Fe by giving reasons for how things can't be logically understood and interpreted with people, giving Fe more successful decisions.

In this way, they do complement each other, but only in this way, which I believe is necessary to keep in mind for any of this to make sense. Contrast this with Te, a function that decides what to do and how to proceed, and Fi, a function that also decides what not to do and how not to proceed but with relationships in mind rather than principled reason, and it starts to make a lot of sense to me. And in a way this suggests that Ti and Fe could be thought of as two people dancing the tango with the world as their dance-room.

I'm going to re-summarize my current understanding:
Te-Fi - boost and nurture each other, symbiosis
Ni-Se - check and balance each other, like a power-balanced government body
Ti-Fe - guides each other, like they are dancing the tango

Now Ne-Si...

Waiting for hopeful links...gonna do hw now.

[1981slater]

I'd like to add a Fe-Ti practical example (and Fi-Te to some extent)

A logical person, the "decision maker" sticks to the rules and decides against someone (actually ignoring the person by focusing on the data). An ethical "advisor" asks the logical to be more sympathetic and take circumstances into account.

As a result, the logical stops being "disliked" by those affected by his decisions: think of a demanding teacher and his/her students.

[tcaudilllg]

That's one way of looking at it. However in Augusta's mind, duality exists only between duals. It's not a real "duality" when it's between other types.

Dual functions are not directly complementary in that they are used to the exclusion of each other. When you focus too much on the primacy of any one function, the first thing that is likely to suffer is the information domain of your dual function. Galileo, for example, ran afoul of Fe when he insisted that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than the sun around it.

Duals may offer each other opportunities to recant "heresies", but that doesn't mean that they are not willing to use force if they disagree -- they only feel an impulse to graciousness and sympathy on the part of their opponent.

Likewise there is no automatic draw between duals. CILi and I have discovered (through firsthand experience) that approaching your dual through online dating is like to have an extraordinary failure rate. Better to approach the other members of your quadra. Looking at them outside of the veil of socionics, your dual may appear profoundly superficial and naive. Except to offer them a helping hand into the "world of the living", you are more likely to jeer at their incompetence than to appreciate their finer qualities. It's only when you make contact that the information flow begins, and even then it only lasts to the extent that either side believes it has 1) something to gain and 2) something to give.

I'd like to add a Fe-Ti practical example (and Fi-Te to some extent)

A logical person, the "decision maker" sticks to the rules and decides against someone (actually ignoring the person by focusing on the data). An ethical "advisor" asks the logical to be more sympathetic and take circumstances into account.

As a result, the logical stops being "disliked" by those affected by his decisions: think of a demanding teacher and his/her students.

Agree with this.

[EyeSeeCold]

The only good relationship duality descriptions I could find were the ones from Socioniko, which are more about lifestyle/personality than paying mind to the functions.

[DividedsGhost]

 

That's one way of looking at it. However in Augusta's mind, duality exists only between duals. It's not a real "duality" when it's between other types.

Dual functions are not directly complementary in that they are used to the exclusion of each other. When you focus too much on the primacy of any one function, the first thing that is likely to suffer is the information domain of your dual function. Galileo, for example, ran afoul of Fe when he insisted that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than the sun around it.

Duals may offer each other opportunities to recant "heresies", but that doesn't mean that they are not willing to use force if they disagree -- they only feel an impulse to graciousness and sympathy on the part of their opponent.

Likewise there is no automatic draw between duals. CILi and I have discovered (through firsthand experience) that approaching your dual through online dating is like to have an extraordinary failure rate. Better to approach the other members of your quadra. Looking at them outside of the veil of socionics, your dual may appear profoundly superficial and naive. Except to offer them a helping hand into the "world of the living", you are more likely to jeer at their incompetence than to appreciate their finer qualities. It's only when you make contact that the information flow begins, and even then it only lasts to the extent that either side believes it has 1) something to gain and 2) something to give.



Agree with this.

Yeah, that's reasonable and there's no reason to assume that just because two people are duals that they should get along. What I'm attempting to do is reconstruct the theory into ego-states, and using functional duality as a basic explanation as to how two people interact with each other, hopefully utilizing all the relationships, given the why of how these relations manifest. Then there is no confusion as to what the relations are relating to. That way, people can understand why and when the relations deviate from their originally constructed ideas.

Also, it should then be possible to separate everything about a person into ego-states (two strong conscious functions: perceiving and judging, introverted and extroverted; and two strong unconscious functions: perceiving and judging and introverted and extroverted) that they utilize with different people and when alone, and construct a reasonable causal-relationship between the model of all eight ego functions for a given ego-state; because as Socionics stands, it falsely makes an assumption that people fit one ego-state, and then attempts to explain all their behavior with the functions in each slot of Model A. This is just wrong and it shows with the massive amounts of resolute differing opinions, confusion, and argumentation between what constitutes what in everything, leading to appropriate mockery and dismissal of the theory. Model A is a good try, and works fine with people that have focused their lives on refining and developing one ego-state (whether they realize it or not), but for people that are more dynamic, it's a huge failure.

And who knows, maybe disorders and pathologies can be better understood if ego-states are considered; because if that is going to happen, the most basic elements of Jungian representation a person can express needs to be under evaluation and not taken for granted like Model A does.

 

I'd like to add a Fe-Ti practical example (and Fi-Te to some extent)

A logical person, the "decision maker" sticks to the rules and decides against someone (actually ignoring the person by focusing on the data). An ethical "advisor" asks the logical to be more sympathetic and take circumstances into account.

As a result, the logical stops being "disliked" by those affected by his decisions: think of a demanding teacher and his/her students.

Yeah, that's the effect. It's definitely how duality manifests. But what is the why behind it?

I edited my post again, but I realized that to produce a why for how Ti and Fe benefit one another, I only needed to look at their natures.

Ti - principled reason and indirect action that is reached only through a mentally intensive sorting of what not to do, how not to do something, and why not to do something. (internally sorting)
Fe - Organization of people that leads to direct action that is reached only through interpreting and finding out why and how people are the way they are. (externally sorting)
Ti benefits Fe - Ti determines the most successful ways Fe can interpret, understand, and organize people through its internal sorting.
Fe benefits Ti - Fe gives Ti an understanding of why and how people are the way they are, eliminating what Ti has to sort.

And the effect you described makes the Ti-leading not rigid and calculating (more understanding -> more Fe-active) and makes the Fe-leading not controlling and misunderstanding (more thought out action -> more successful with people)

It's really amazing this way. But clearly they need to be in a position to benefit one another with their cognitions or their relationship is not going to hold up or form.

[Jarno]

You guys seem to have a practical viewpoint/approach to duality.

My experience is quite simple, my dual gives me pleasurable feelings in my head / subcounscious. All talk is easy, everything is understandable, and suprises me every time in a pleasant way.

I've never really noticed that a dual is all that helpful. It feels clearly that they are on your side, and that they can back you up, protect you.

But you guys make it sound like, an ENFP needs an ISTP when their car broke down. That's not what duality is about IMO.

[tcaudilllg]

Divided the only way you're going to succeed in achieving the deeper understanding of the relations that you seek, is by learning dimensionality theory and studying the functions in action. Function differ on two bases, their dimensionality and their relationship to the superego. People use functions differently depending on how strong their id's hold over them appears to be. Mental track functions tend to agree with the superego's perspective on their use; vital track functions, in contrast, tend to want to strike out on their own without the superego's approval.

Also, quadra form differences are very important. I remember in my last relationship with my EIE ex, she tended to become dependent on me for Ti. Not like ESE "it's this way because I feel is should be", but really insecure type of dependent, like she wasn't confident in her understanding of anything. Of course an LSI would have spent hours supplying her with an endless train of readily applicable thought for every last nuance and situation likely to manifest in her culture, but I'm not an LSI. I expect people to use basic principles, which I provide, to figure out for themselves the way things are. But when people ask that I think through everything for them by running through myriad potential scenarios, then my first reaction is that they shouldn't rely on me to do their thinking for them. This is why I get along better with ESEs, who just want the principles, than with EIEs, who always want in-depth explanations.

[1981slater]

Yeah, that's the effect. It's definitely how duality manifests. But what is the why behind it?

I'll add some thoughts:

A basic idea of Economics is that the most efficient way two persons ("producers & consumers at the same time") can live together consists of the following:

Person 1 needs product a and product b

Person 2 needs product a and product b

Person 1 is good at producing product a

Person 2 is good at producing product b

To save time and energy, 1 should produce 2 units of product a (1 for himself, the other for p 2), whereas person 2 should produce 2 units of b (1 for himself and the other for p1). Then, they must exchange one unit of a for another of b.


My point of view: what happens when the high efficiency levels make life easier for them? They should evolve to avoid stagnation: in other words, both should fix their weak points, namely learning how to be good at producing both items ("self-dualization").

[chip]

first hand account of duality.

common phenomenons

energy exchange: duals smile graciously and naturally with one another. In a romantic situation that can produce euphoria. Laughter between duals often sounds relaxed and sincere. Duality produces spontaneity and often elevates the mood of both duals. They smile and laugh unself-conciously.

gestulation: instinctively they act very similiar in terms of gestulation. I pay close attention to the degree of intensity when gesturing. Gestures can be short or long, controlled or wild, deleberate or spontaneous, rigid or flexible, modest or extreme, etc. I consider this new and thereby questionable but I am beginning to notice duals gesture in a similar manner regardless of the expression inwhich they are getting across. They gesture proportionately the same whether happy, sad, mad, disgusted, etc. I have seen a EII yell without restrain when angered and heard of a LSE behaving in the same manner. Ironically when a EII is happy they often restrain their emotions as does the LSE.

another example is of the LSI and EIE duals. They can gesture with restrain when angered but when in more pleasant moods they gesture unrestrained. - I need further research to confirm my findings concretely as this may be coincidental.

personal space: They share the same demeanor in regards toward people's personal space. I have often noticed irrationals can keep a closer personal space than rationals (I may have to do some further research to see concretely that this is true).

verbal exchange: duals introduce verbal distinctions which is immediately adopted as their own. I consider that unique to duality. Duals begin to mirror each other's verbal preferences. Adopting aspects of each others individual linguistic expressions but done without mimicry or imitation. Both individuals remain true to themselves without repression and yet share a same linguistic preference in a subtle manner.

The phenomenon occurs freely. I consider 'words' to be a single part of a thought pattern and thereby view duality as changing the thought patterns for both. When a person is in the habit or condition of thinking in certain terms a dual can alter those patterns in a healthy and balanced manner. People can remark that if one dual is pyschological worse off well then they often benefit more than benefitting their dual.

Furthermore since language is the foundation of reality duality literally alters the course of one's own reality. I do not mean this in a profound way nor reject such a notion. I mean to say thought precedes action unless one were a mindless automatic robot.

age difference: I notice age can often determine the flow of exchange. When one dual is years older than the other they often bestow good advice and positive thinking onto their younger dual. However since the younger dual appreciates the older duals advice they too feel the duality effect. The older dual feels appreciated that their advice is so well received and of course the younger dual appreciates good advice that can change their behaviour.

[tcaudilllg]

My point of view: what happens when the high efficiency levels make life easier for them? They should evolve to avoid stagnation: in other words, both should fix their weak points, namely learning how to be good at producing both items ("self-dualization").

You can only do that when society is itself stagnant. The growth and evolution of intellectual discourse brings with it a tendency to "lose touch" with weak functions. It's not that you "suck" at one function or another: suckage is relative. Base functions will always excell -- a person of a given type will, relative to other types, always be at the top of their base function's game.

A lot is made of duality, but your dual can be your best friend, or your most serious critic.

[Beautiful sky]

Chip *ahoy*

Yes, I'm rather blissfully calm and restrained when I'm in even mood and neither marry nor upset. I usually move calmly and steadily and seem emotionless on the outside and walk like a butterfly, air like motion.