Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: critique of dual relations

  1. #1
    Creepy-

    Default critique of dual relations

    LOL...socionics is pretty screwed up when it comes to intertype relations. The idea is right but the theories are wrong.

    Socionics dosesn't take into consideration subtype differences. And the J/P argument made by socionics is both wrong and right. Is right because the MBTI test are biased towards one subtype of a type. Socionics recognized something was wrong but ended up with the same bias but with the other subtype.

    And like I mentioned earlier each subtype is different and have different needs in a mate.

    For instance:

    DUAL RELATIONS - Intuitive subtype:
    dominant "N" = ENFP
    less dominant "N" = ESFP

    DUAL RELATIONS - logical subtype
    dominant "T" = ESTP
    less dominant "T" = ESFP


    - there must be balance for a relation to work. If you are an intuitive subtype and you have a strong "N" function (N ~ 90 %) you won't be compatible with someone with a strong "S" function. A good example of this is Madonna (INTJ) and her husband (ENFP).

  2. #2
    Creepy-

    Default

    ***Sorry out left out the subtype "matches". More important than the type that you'll be attracted to is the "subtype". ***

    Is your attracted to ESFP, you're relationship with each subtype will not be the same, bec. the other "subtype" is not your dual.

    My theory is based of observing/ listening to what each type and subtype eants in a mate. And my theory works. People leave socionics because it tells them they should want something that they don't want. Just like your career interest, you KNOW what you want and what you don't want.

    Until socionics takes a closer look at their theories, then they won't be taken seriously.

  3. #3
    Creepy-

    Default

    For instance:

    DUAL RELATIONS - Intuitive subtype:
    dominant "N" = ENFP
    less dominant "N" = ESFP

    DUAL RELATIONS - logical subtype
    dominant "T" = ESTP
    less dominant "T" = ESFP
    By the way the relationships above are for INTJ subtypes.

    And CuriousSoul are you sure about your type? To me you sould like an INFJ (intuitive subtype). If you are, then the best match for you is ONE (and not both) of the ENTP subtypes.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: My type

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    And CuriousSoul are you sure about your type? To me you sould like an INFJ (intuitive subtype). If you are, then the best match for you is ONE (and not both) of the ENTP subtypes.
    Interesting theory. I am pretty sure my socionics type is INFP intuitive subtype. At least that way the relationships fit. My posts may not fully reflect my "off-line" personality, and the fact that English is not my mother tongue may cause me to sound more formal than I usually am.

    I think no theory can fully take into account the differences between people and I think socionists should study the subtypes more closely but you seem to say that relations of supervision would be ideal. In my opinion they may work if you are willing to constantly adjust to each other but what makes you think they could really be ideal? It just sounds strange.

    My picture is not suitable for VI purposes. :wink:

  5. #5
    Creepy-

    Default

    ...but you seem to say that relations of supervision would be ideal. In my opinion they may work if you are willing to constantly adjust to each other but what makes you think they could really be ideal?

    My problem with socionics is that it is too SIMPLISTIC. There are definitely different types of relations, but not ALL INFP's have the same dual, activity, and supervisions relations with the SAME types...

    They may process information similarly, but they are very different. Mainly because one predominantly uses one function while the other is using the other.

    As a result, each subtype has it's own UNIQUE set of relations.

    My "theory" is based off real life observations and studies. People can't help what they are attracted. In some cases, I studied people who didn't know what "type" they were but I studied the list of very specific personality and physcial traits that they were most attracted to in a mate. Then after that, it was determined which subtype they were. And there is definitely a noticable trend...each subtype (of each type) isattracted to and have "dual" relations with certain types. There is NO adjustment needed in dual relationships.

    Do you know what traits, physical and personality, that you must have in a mate? Can you honestly say that those traits line up with socionics says that you want...

  6. #6
    Creepy-PedroTheLion

    Default

    what you're talking about is just a new typology an increase in the functions and a new description of how they interact. Basicly this is a reductionist reaction to the flaws in socionics. The universalist view would be too dismiss it all and try to merge all type differences into a non-logical blob of nonsense. We can't reduce socionics to the point of having infinite functions and infinite (or so many that no use can be extracted) relations. On the other hand we can't merge them all into one undifferentiated function.

  7. #7
    Creepy-Curious

    Default My type

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    For instance:

    DUAL RELATIONS - Intuitive subtype:
    dominant "N" = ENFP
    less dominant "N" = ESFP

    DUAL RELATIONS - logical subtype
    dominant "T" = ESTP
    less dominant "T" = ESFP
    By the way the relationships above are for INTJ subtypes.

    And CuriousSoul are you sure about your type? To me you sould like an INFJ (intuitive subtype). If you are, then the best match for you is ONE (and not both) of the ENTP subtypes.
    It seems I am back to square one. It is actually possible that my type could be INFJ. All the evidence is a bit contradictory, I thought I had adopted an INFJ mask type when online but maybe it actually is my true type. I have to go through everything again many times over before I will be able to say anything for sure, but what remains of Socionics if the intertype relations cannot be trusted or how do the subtypes change them?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    And there is definitely a noticable trend...each subtype (of each type) isattracted to and have "dual" relations with certain types. There is NO adjustment needed in dual relationships.
    Are you sure? As I understand and personal experience too, dual relations also have conflict, it's just that conflict leads to understanding and mutual defense of partners instead of something else(like more conflict and misunderstanding, as in conflict relations). In fact, conflict is necessary although less common for dualization.

  9. #9
    Creepy-

    Default

    Yes. That's why so many people are attracted to socionics but get turned off easily. The system is not applicable for everyone.

    And yes conflict is healthy, but in a true dual relationships conflicts aren't often and are easily resolved.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default duality

    I took a survey of who prefered duality relations. It seems that members of the Beta quadrant dislike Duality relations the most. The members of Alfa quadrant like them the most. Gama and Delta are in the middle.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My problem with socionics is that it is too SIMPLISTIC.
    Interesting criticism...would you prefer it were overly complicated, drowing in a sea of theories making it impotent and impossible to understand?

    There are definitely different types of relations, but not ALL INFP's have the same dual, activity, and supervisions relations with the SAME types...
    ???? So, then perhaps one INFp might have dual relations with an ISTp, and another dual with ENTp? Perhaps on one day that same INFp's supervisor is ISFj, and on another...ESTp? Interesting theory...sort of like saying everyone is different.

    They may process information similarly, but they are very different. Mainly because one predominantly uses one function while the other is using the other.
    Huh? Please explain.

    As a result, each subtype has it's own UNIQUE set of relations.
    How many sub-types exist in this theory? 2? 3? 10? Little more explanation please.

    My "theory" is based off real life observations and studies.
    Where? When? How long have you been studying socionics?

    People can't help what they are attracted. In some cases, I studied people who didn't know what "type" they were but I studied the list of very specific personality and physcial traits that they were most attracted to in a mate. Then after that, it was determined which subtype they were. And there is definitely a noticable trend...each subtype (of each type) isattracted to and have "dual" relations with certain types. There is NO adjustment needed in dual relationships.
    People are attracted to a lot of things...I'm attracted to ESTp females (unfortunately) and it isn't because of their warm and fuzziness which would be an Fe trait. That doesn't mean that people demonstrating a strong Se preference are my dual because of the INTj sub-type I hold.

    Do you know what traits, physical and personality, that you must have in a mate? Can you honestly say that those traits line up with socionics says that you want...
    Yes. I can say, from experience AND observation, that I know what personality traits AND especially, physical traits I desire in a mate. The physical traits, most people would argue, are the EASIEST to identify, and with the definitions put forth by Jung and socionics model, I can say what personality traits I desire as well. Your "theory" is absolutely LUDICROUS. You make NO attempt to provide examples or logic to back it up, and I have trouble even knowing which parts to argue against as they're so vague. I hope for the sake of socionics and the advancement of psychology that you don't publish your "theories" and make it even harder for socionists and REAL scientists to bring these ideas to light.

  12. #12
    Creepy-

    Default

    ??? Perhaps on one day that same INFp's supervisor is ISFj, and on another...ESTp?
    No of course not. LOL


    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    For instance:

    INTJ :

    DUAL RELATIONS - Intuitive subtype:
    dominant "N" = ENFP
    less dominant "N" = ESFP

    DUAL RELATIONS - logical subtype
    dominant "T" = ESTP
    less dominant "T" = ESFP
    By the way the relationships above are for INTJ subtypes.


    And if you look a little closer you'll see that I indicated that the dual for INTJ (logical subtype) is ESTP (logical subtype).

    People are attracted to a lot of things...I'm attracted to ESTp females .
    Looks like you prove my theory. :wink:

  13. #13
    Creepy-

    Default

    [quote="SFVB"]
    I hope for the sake of socionics and the advancement of psychology that you don't publish your "theories" and make it even harder for socionists and REAL scientists to bring these ideas to light.
    Well people don't take socionics seriously. But why ???

    Lots of people check it out and then ditch it because the theories aren't applicable. I'm not making things harder for socionists, they've done that on their own. Unitl socionists figure out where they messed up, it won't survive.

  14. #14
    Creepy-

    Default


    And if you look a little closer you'll see that I indicated that the dual for INTJ (logical subtype) is ESTP (logical subtype).
    ...that should be ESTP (sensory subtype)

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    People are attracted to a lot of things...I'm attracted to ESTp females .


    Looks like you prove my theory.
    Moths are attracted to flames...doesn't make it good for them.

  16. #16
    Creepy-

    Default

    I have yet to hear anyone on this board discuss how good their
    "so called" dual relationships are. That's because socionists use a faulty intertype relations theory.

    There are quite a few INTJ's on this board and none talk about how great ESFJ's are or how they have good friends that are ESFJ. Interesting...

    So IF you have had better relationships with ESFJ's please do tell...

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Read my article ESFj uncovered in the alpha quadra section. I would be hard pressed to write an article about a type that I didn't want to and feel as if I understood, as well as I understand the ESFjs I have, and have had in my life. And to be honest...I'm not so sure your "typing" of the individuals you've claimed to identify as ESFjs or ESTps or INTjs or whatever, would fall in line with how an adherent to socionics would type them.

    There are quite a few INTJ's on this board and none talk about how great ESFJ's are or how they have good friends that are ESFJ. Interesting...
    If you knew ANYTHING about INTjs, you'd know that personal life and emotional feelings towards others are not a "hot" topic for this particular type. I can name at least 4 ESFjs that I've had VERY close relationships with, one current. Get your facts straight. Your theories sound very much like David Keirsey's theories which I abandoned a long time ago for their "humanitarian" bias and lack of scientific foundation. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on the psychological type model that you adhere to? Myers-Briggs, Keirsey Temperment??? I'd love to have a rational debate conerning your understanding of Jungian type theory, but I first need to know where you're coming from.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    So IF you have had better relationships with ESFJ's please do tell...
    So I suppose our forums aren't immune to trolling I guess. Well as an INTJ, I've had several relationships with different ESFJs who I have very correctly typed. There is a huge difference between a dual relationship close and long distance. The dual relation that was close was the closest relationship I have ever had and what I measure all other relationships to. And yes, INTjs are not inclined to talk about this kind of thing.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd love for "guest" to lay out his "sub-type duality theory" for all of us. The only thing I can extract from his theory is that people ought to be with a person who has their primary function in the secondary position, and rational types should be with irrational types...I don't know about anyone else who's reading this...but rational and irrational are not the "best" combination when it comes to creating a harmonious relationship.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, dear guest do tell us more about your theory. There might well be something to it - I do quite often find ENTPs attractive. One potential problem with duality could be that it ensures the most efficient distribution of duties as the parties have fully supportive functions, but is seems to me that there could be lack of common interests and things to talk about that could cause problems in the long run. How many people have you obseved, for how long time, how sure are you about their types and subtypes etc. We need more details.

  21. #21
    Dmitri Lytov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    231
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just looked at the beginning of the topic... Maybe the following link will explain a little bit what duality between these two types look like. Duality is not professional cooperation, it is something else:

    http://socioniko.narod.ru/en/1.3.rels/dual-2p.html
    www.socioniko.net is no longer my site.

  22. #22
    Creepy-

    Default

    Do you happen to know what subtypes they each belong to?

  23. #23
    Dmitri Lytov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    231
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    While not everything is good with the TYPES in socionics, studying the problem of subtypes seems to be rather harmful than useful.
    www.socioniko.net is no longer my site.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    While not everything is good with the TYPES in socionics, studying the problem of subtypes seems to be rather harmful than useful.
    I couldn't agree more...[/code]

  25. #25
    Creepy-

    Default Re: the funny thing about socionics is...

    Quote Originally Posted by ayoforjager
    There are some people who are very easy to type, and their relations with others who are also easy to type are easy to identify. However, there are also people out there whose types are very hard to identify. These people have more blurry intertype relations, which don't necessarily follow the same patterns.

    It's really very interesting how some people can be pegged a certain type (through V.I. and behavior) almost immediately, while other people can have very unique looks and actions. These people can be narrowed down to a few types, but its never easy.

    Anyone have any ideas why this might be? Why sometimes you can meet someone and within ten seconds know that you're talking to an ENFJ, while sometimes you can know someone for a very long time and still be unsure of their type?
    This is so true. I have yet to figure it out.

Posting Permissions

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