Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Super-Id Relations, or, Why Do Duals Get So Much Attention?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Super-Id Relations, or, Why Do Duals Get So Much Attention?

    The emphasis on duality bugs the crap out of me. There seems to be no reason why duals in particular should be more than marginally more symbiotic than the other compatible relations. Also, it appears that the aforementioned emphasis encourages people to define socionic concepts such that deductions from them will verify the coziness of duality. We end up with sentences on the wiki like "as the vulnerable function of one's dual, [the demonstrative function] requires especially delicate attention." This is about as significant as something like "The role function requires especially delicate attention, being the creative function of one's beneficiary," since people probably deal with their beneficiaries as often as their duals, and the beneficiary's creative function will be an important element in interactions with said beneficiary. Additionally, I often see duality being treated as somehow crucial for one's psychological development, further inflating it's importance.

    So, my question is - WHY? Why are dualistic relations treated this way? They seem like someone's romantic soapbox inserted into the system, and they cause some damage to its integrity. Can't we just rename duals "Super-Id Relations," re-examine their effects in a more reasonable fashion, and forget all this silliness?

  2. #2
    voiliov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is obvious.

    It's because of the misperception, or the hopeful assumption, that with duality comes true love. Socionics is a science, or pseudoscience really, that seems to show the way to finding all these things. Of course the holy grail of duality will be the focus of most people who are superficially attracted to the study of socionics. People want love and many are used to looking for shortcuts for everything. Socionics seems a shortcut.

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    The emphasis on duality bugs the crap out of me. There seems to be no reason why duals in particular should be more than marginally more symbiotic than the other compatible relations. Also, it appears that the aforementioned emphasis encourages people to define socionic concepts such that deductions from them will verify the coziness of duality. We end up with sentences on the wiki like "as the vulnerable function of one's dual, [the demonstrative function] requires especially delicate attention." This is about as significant as something like "The role function requires especially delicate attention, being the creative function of one's beneficiary," since people probably deal with their beneficiaries as often as their duals, and the beneficiary's creative function will be an important element in interactions with said beneficiary. Additionally, I often see duality being treated as somehow crucial for one's psychological development, further inflating it's importance.

    So, my question is - WHY? Why are dualistic relations treated this way? They seem like someone's romantic soapbox inserted into the system, and they cause some damage to its integrity. Can't we just rename duals "Super-Id Relations," re-examine their effects in a more reasonable fashion, and forget all this silliness?
    Last edited by voiliov; 03-09-2011 at 02:14 AM.

  3. #3
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,630
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    The emphasis on duality bugs the crap out of me. There seems to be no reason why duals in particular should be more than marginally more symbiotic than the other compatible relations.
    This is like the whole point of socionics. You might as well complain about how special relativity makes a big deal about the constancy of the speed of light. It was something that was empirically discovered, and a theoretical framework was invented (based on Jung's typology) to explain it. Duality is the most compatible relation, although I personally have had very good experiences with activators.

    Also, it appears that the aforementioned emphasis encourages people to define socionic concepts such that deductions from them will verify the coziness of duality. We end up with sentences on the wiki like "as the vulnerable function of one's dual, [the demonstrative function] requires especially delicate attention." This is about as significant as something like "The role function requires especially delicate attention, being the creative function of one's beneficiary," since people probably deal with their beneficiaries as often as their duals, and the beneficiary's creative function will be an important element in interactions with said beneficiary.
    This is a good point; people don't talk about the other relations as much as they might.

    Additionally, I often see duality being treated as somehow crucial for one's psychological development, further inflating it's importance.
    Duality (and to a lesser extent other complementary relations) is indeed helpful psychologically. I don't know if I would say "crucial". But if someone has a history of bad socionic relations, it's going to have a negative effect on them psychologically, and vice versa. Duality and conflict are just extreme versions of that (depending on the situation).

    So, my question is - WHY? Why are dualistic relations treated this way? They seem like someone's romantic soapbox inserted into the system, and they cause some damage to its integrity. Can't we just rename duals "Super-Id Relations," re-examine their effects in a more reasonable fashion, and forget all this silliness?
    I get the feeling you're not an ethical type...

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I get the feeling you're not an ethical type...
    Merry thinker. Maybe that's related to my chagrin towards duality.

    Quote Originally Posted by yarya View Post
    This is obvious.

    It's because of the misperception, or the hopeful assumption, that with duality comes true love. Socionics is a science, or pseudoscience really, that seems to show the way to finding all these things. Of course the holy grail of duality will be the focus of most people who are superficially attracted to the study of socionics. People want love and many are used to looking for shortcuts for everything. Socionics seems a shortcut.
    How then, would duality appear sans the idiocy here described?

  5. #5
    Sir Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yarya View Post
    It's because of the misperception, or the hopeful assumption, that with duality comes true love. Socionics is a science, or pseudoscience really, that seems to show the way to finding all these things. Of course the holy grail of duality will be the focus of most people who are superficially attracted to the study of socionics. People want love and many are used to looking for shortcuts for everything. Socionics seems a shortcut.
    In a sense, this. It hurts to admit it, but yes, this hits very close to home.

    Still, how would you say that damages Socionics' integrity?
    4w5 sp/sx

    Please, direct all questioning of my self-typing to this thread. Thank you.

  6. #6
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    3,813
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just absorb the information and move on. Why does it bother you that there is a lot of information out there on duality? The more information is out there imo the better.

    Btw none of the descriptions of duality I've read describe it as "true love". They simply outline why and how it is easy and enjoyable to be around your dual partner. Strictly conceptually it is actually one of the most boring relations in socionics. And if you inspect this forum closely you will see that posters here spend a lot of time investigating other relation types outside of duality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    ... We end up with sentences on the wiki like "as the vulnerable function of one's dual, [the demonstrative function] requires especially delicate attention." This is about as significant as something like "The role function requires especially delicate attention, being the creative function of one's beneficiary," since people probably deal with their beneficiaries as often as their duals ...
    That isn't instructions for you on how to behave i.e. "pay special attention to this when around your dual" but rather a continuation of explanation of why duality feels so comforting - that not only your dual appreciates your dominant and creative functions but also they are automatically protecting your PoLR via their demonstrative function which functions essentially like a stop sign blocking the flow of information.

  7. #7
    Reflection mirrorsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With my parents. :(
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because the creators of Socionics (or at least the Intertype relationship theories) believed based on their analysis that it was an ideal relationship if the assumptions of Model A hold true.

    Now, of course, if you question whether the analysis was biased, or whether Model A can be applied to that degree, you should discard the concept of Dual relations being special. You can go ahead and dismiss it, and just read Duality as nothing special, just like every other relation.

    Socionics can still be useful even if you don't think about Duality... I mean, you should still consider it as a possible relation, but don't idealize it, and you should be fine. Let the people who are hoping for an ideal relationship have their fun, I say.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    9w1
    Posts
    2,775
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah all that duality and conflictorship talk is annoying.If this theory shows you who you should hate or love then you 've got it all wrong.
    i haven't come close with LIEs but i can see how they would not bother me ,help me do stuff and make me feel at ease.Actually i think i prefer my Ni sub activators for the first and the last one.BTW, have i mentioned how great E6w5 Fi-SEEs are?
    unholy water sanguine addiction

  9. #9
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The theory points to a couple of things that support the idea of duality. (1) Everyone has a lopsided way of processing the world, and (2) some relations are more psychologically comfortable than others.

    I think people's self-reported experiences with duality on this forum range pretty widely, from "wow" to "bored" to "comforting" to "not the right dual, but I can see why this might work with a different dual," and so on, as well as "I'm in a relationship or marriage with [Activity, Semi-dual, Comparative, Illusionary, etc.] and very pleased."

    Depending on which Beta NF I am, I've been partnered with my Conflictor or Superego relation, and I lived day to day for years among people of my opposite quadra. It was really bad, and the ending and ongoing reverberations are worse. And it's not surprising, socionically speaking, that I find myself now seeking out people who actually understand and support me, and they are mostly Beta (Activity, Dual, Mirror, Identity)--it's beyond a tremendous relief.

    In terms of romantic partnering, it takes some getting used to, just being again with a same-quadra member. To actually be able to achieve intimacy ... that's kind of a big deal. It doesn't mean that everything just magically falls into place. It does mean that I have the opportunity to grow up a bit and figure out how to be in a loving, realistic relationship that is not about merely arranging the surface. In a way, it means taking more responsibility concerning my actions, my expectations, my growth, and my tolerance.

    This is just a long-winded way of saying I think based on my relatively long experience with relationships, there's something to Socionics' ideas of compatibility. Sometimes other people will even say something surprisingly accurate about it. I.e., depending on how you type us, my boyfriend is my Activity partner. And a Beta ST (prob LSI) friend of mine said a couple of weeks ago when I visited her that she can tell this relationship is good for me. What she said: "I think it's really cool the way he has activated you." She has never heard of Socionics. Could be just coincidence, but a cool one.

  10. #10
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm married to my dual, but I didn't get married until I was in my late 20s so I've been in other relationships as well, including serious relationships. Duality is different, though I wouldn't call it a holy grail, more like just an easier relationship. Not necessarily an easier romantic relationship, just an easier relationship with fewer misunderstandings. The difference I saw in my marriage to the marriages of other people I know is what made me hit google up and try to find out if there was an explanation to the difference, and therefore what made me look into Socionics in the first place. I think there absolutely is a difference, based on experience. You say there "shouldn't" be a difference, which makes me think you don't see a logical reason why there would be, but you aren't basing this on real life experience?
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  11. #11
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    The emphasis on duality bugs the crap out of me. There seems to be no reason why duals in particular should be more than marginally more symbiotic than the other gompatible relations.
    There is a reason, Duality is the perfect compatibility in what concerns this theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    Also, it appears that the aforementioned emphasis encourages people to define socionic concepts such that deductions from them will verify the coziness of duality.
    Yes, that actually happens, but it's not the fault of the theory, but of their ignorance/superficiality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    We end up with sentences on the wiki like "as the vulnerable function of one's dual, [the demonstrative function] requires especially dalicate attention." This is about as significant as something like "The role function requires especially delicate attention, being the creative function of one's beneficiary," since people probably deal with their beneficiaries as often as their duals, and the beneficiary's creative function will be an important element in interactions with said beneficiary.
    Either way, it's the same thing. They can be explained in more than one manner, and this is what actually creates the whole spectrum.

    Having Ti-Creative, for instance, is exactly the same thing as having Fi-PoLR, there's no difference, there's no such thing as "he has Ti-Creative but then he has Fi-PoLR". (check my thread about Ne and Se in the article section for an attempt to explain their unitary antagonism). Synthetically describing the psyche, indeed you see 8 functions, though all are determined by the two in the Ego block.

    Your dilemma sounds like "why do people say 'heading north' instead of 'leaving south'" - because they're simply the same thing. The different views on the same reality are what makes the difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    So, my question is - WHY? Why are dualistic relations treated this way? They seem like someone's romantic soapbox inserted into the system, and they cause some damage to its integrity. Can't we just rename duals "Super-Id Relations," re-examine their effects in a more reasonable fashion, and forget all this silliness?
    Like I said, because this is how it is, the information exchange is beneficial. Why the Earth is round? - certainly not because people wanted to have it perfect, the laws of physics make it so; if you dismiss it as "too good to be true", that that's your problem, IMO.
    The relationships in Socionics are not a matter of "better" or "worse", though you can put it that way, they are - in theory - precise formulas. In chemistry, for example, there are stable and unstable composites, they react with each other by precise rules, but you have to learn chemistry to tell why it is so.

    Edit: "Super-Id relationships" could be called both Duality and Activation. Only in Duality all the functions of the individuals fit together completely.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  12. #12
    Bam! Just like Emeril.
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    33
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Duality is cool and all, but at least for an Fi-Polr like me, the idealization of it can negatively influence actual dual relationships. Over-idealization can create serious expectations, which can get in the way of the great informational chemistry that duality is all about to begin with. Especially if I don't know for myself what my emotional distance is with someone.

    It's almost like you kinda close the lid on what the relationship can be if you overemphasize its "perfection."
    Sometimes, chaos > perfection , and there's no reason dual relations can't be the former.

    Ya' digg?
    This is the place where I procrastinate on things Sig related.

    ILE

  13. #13
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VILEvenezuelan View Post
    It's almost like you kinda close the lid on what the relationship can be if you overemphasize its "perfection."
    Sometimes, chaos > perfection , and there's no reason dual relations can't be the former.

    Ya' digg?
    You've got to grasp the theory first to understand. There's nothing subjective in it, it's a phenomenon, this "perfect" is not as in good, order, or anything else but in psychological compatibility. It's like acoustic/mechanical resonance: there's an exact tone you can use to shatter a certain crystal glass, that's called resonance. The same resonance you apply when you try to push your car out of a mud hole, there's a certain rhythm that increases its energy in order to take it out.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

Posting Permissions

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