Failure to Fly: explaing non-duality outside of socionics

[chip]

By now, you are familiar with the theory of socionics, and, like so many others, you were intially drawn to the mystical relationship of duality. You read the description repeatedly to ensure that you did not miss a vital point and that all words and concepts were driven into your thoughts. The idealistic concept of 'true love', a 'perfect partner', or a 'perfect fit', something that so many people long for without finding, something that so many people aspire to attain in their short lives. Is this the key to finding true happiness within a romantic relationship? That is the promise socionics professes but sadly does not guarantee.

They acknowledge that duality is actually more rare than any other relationship but why is 'the most psychological compatible relationship' such a rarity? They answer thus: dual partners must interact with one another and be attracted to one another. They must want the same things, and so on and so forth. Is that not simplistic? Are dual partners not capable of compromising their desires? Are not dual partners capable of looking past shallow appearances? I will cease to entertain these questions any further and instead narrow my focus.

Here is a moment of clarity I wish to share with you: socionics is a psychological theory of personality and not a theory on healthy and loving relationships. They have researched, observed, collected data, analyzed, and developed a theory on psychological types and from that derived a theorhetical model of socionic types. Their conclusion is that duality is the preferrential relationship amongst all sixteen relationships. That much is true and I personally agree with that nugget of knowledge. However, what does that really amount to? So dual partnerships will naturally work itself out without effort? Socionics have tried to explain why dual partners do not succeed in their relationships as if to do so goes against nature. There are seven stages of duality, etc. Is that the real reason? I ask: is it wise to heed romantic advise from socionics when socionics and romance are completely different!? Socionics prescribes how duality 'should' work but they do not have the authority to prescribe how a romantic relationship works! That is the truth.

So then from here I will examine how two individuals who are dual partners can and can not experience duality utterly separate from socionics. Here I will refer to the psychologist John Gottman. He has been studying successful and failed marriages for four decades. His entire expertise is to offer an explanation as to why some couples have long lasting marriages and other couples divorce only after a short time. He divised a classification system between two main categories: masters and disasters. I will not regurgitate his research word for word but instead put this into context for socionics.

If you meet your dual and you find them attractive and you pursue a relationship with them, then the success of the relationship does not depend upon socionics but upon the emotional nurturance of the partners. That is to say John Gottman's explanation of a master and disaster are entirely based upon how a person nurtures within a relationship. This has nothing to do with their biological predisposition nor their personality type. So an ESFJ type that has a healthy disposition will act in accordance with the description of a master. That is someone who is considerate, honest, kind, giving, etc. As such they are most favourable for a relationship independent of the other persons type. They will be a master in their relationship wheather they are paired with an INTJ, ESFJ, ENTP, etc. Since they are a master in their relationship, they are more likely to have a healthy and happy relationship. The same is true of the disaster.

If you have ever met your dual partner only to discover that they are extremely difficult to handle and you can not get along with them then that has nothing to do with socionics nor duality. If you or your dual partner are a disaster in a relationship then that will be the source of destruction within the relationship. A dual partner can be abusive, critical, mean, predatory, dominating, selfish, etc. Such traits diminish emotional trust and intimacy. So to clarify once more. If an individual is a master in their relationships then that will be a more vital factor in the health and happiness regardless of their socionic relationships.

What can we conclude from this? Only what we already know, socionics is not everything. It can make a difference in relationships but it is not the sole determinate cause for the success or failure especially of a romantic relationship. So be weary of your thoughts and do not get entangled into believing that a relationship did not work out because dualization did not fully occur. I'd suggest to keep an open mind with regards to other relationships. Sure identify a person by their socionic type but look deeper into their disposition and attitude in life. To use John Gottman's terminology, is that dual partner a master or a disaster in their relationships? I'd even suggest to seek an individual who has a pleasant personality rather than try make a dual relationship work with somone who is a disaster.


http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...-after/372573/
http://www.gottmanblog.com/2013/04/t...criticism.html

[Reficulris]

By now, you are familiar with the theory of socionics, and, like so many others, you were intially drawn to the mystical relationship of duality. You read the description repeatedly to ensure that you did not miss a vital point and that all words and concepts were driven into your thoughts. The idealistic concept of 'true love', a 'perfect partner', or a 'perfect fit', something that so many people long for without finding, something that so many people aspire to attain in their short lives. Is this the key to finding true happiness within a romantic relationship? That is the promise socionics professes but sadly does not guarantee.

They acknowledge that duality is actually more rare than any other relationship but why is 'the most psychological compatible relationship' such a rarity? They answer thus: dual partners must interact with one another and be attracted to one another. They must want the same things, and so on and so forth. Is that not simplistic? Are dual partners not capable of compromising their desires? Are not dual partners capable of looking past shallow appearances? I will cease to entertain these questions any further and instead narrow my focus.

Here is a moment of clarity I wish to share with you: socionics is a psychological theory of personality and not a theory on healthy and loving relationships. They have researched, observed, collected data, analyzed, and developed a theory on psychological types and from that derived a theorhetical model of socionic types. Their conclusion is that duality is the preferrential relationship amongst all sixteen relationships. That much is true and I personally agree with that nugget of knowledge. However, what does that really amount to? So dual partnerships will naturally work itself out without effort? Socionics have tried to explain why dual partners do not succeed in their relationships as if to do so goes against nature. There are seven stages of duality, etc. Is that the real reason? I ask: is it wise to heed romantic advise from socionics when socionics and romance are completely different!? Socionics prescribes how duality 'should' work but they do not have the authority to prescribe how a romantic relationship works! That is the truth.

So then from here I will examine how two individuals who are dual partners can and can not experience duality utterly separate from socionics. Here I will refer to the psychologist John Gottman. He has been studying successful and failed marriages for four decades. His entire expertise is to offer an explanation as to why some couples have long lasting marriages and other couples divorce only after a short time. He divised a classification system between two main categories: masters and disasters. I will not regurgitate his research word for word but instead put this into context for socionics.

If you meet your dual and you find them attractive and you pursue a relationship with them, then the success of the relationship does not depend upon socionics but upon the emotional nurturance of the partners. That is to say John Gottman's explanation of a master and disaster are entirely based upon how a person nurtures within a relationship. This has nothing to do with their biological predisposition nor their personality type. So an ESFJ type that has a healthy disposition will act in accordance with the description of a master. That is someone who is considerate, honest, kind, giving, etc. As such they are most favourable for a relationship independent of the other persons type. They will be a master in their relationship wheather they are paired with an INTJ, ESFJ, ENTP, etc. Since they are a master in their relationship, they are more likely to have a healthy and happy relationship. The same is true of the disaster.

If you have ever met your dual partner only to discover that they are extremely difficult to handle and you can not get along with them then that has nothing to do with socionics nor duality. If you or your dual partner are a disaster in a relationship then that will be the source of destruction within the relationship. A dual partner can be abusive, critical, mean, predatory, dominating, selfish, etc. Such traits diminish emotional trust and intimacy. So to clarify once more. If an individual is a master in their relationships then that will be a more vital factor in the health and happiness regardless of their socionic relationships.

What can we conclude from this? Only what we already know, socionics is not everything. It can make a difference in relationships but it is not the sole determinate cause for the success or failure especially of a romantic relationship. So be weary of your thoughts and do not get entangled into believing that a relationship did not work out because dualization did not fully occur. I'd suggest to keep an open mind with regards to other relationships. Sure identify a person by their socionic type but look deeper into their disposition and attitude in life. To use John Gottman's terminology, is that dual partner a master or a disaster in their relationships? I'd even suggest to seek an individual who has a pleasant personality rather than try make a dual relationship work with somone who is a disaster.


http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...-after/372573/
http://www.gottmanblog.com/2013/04/t...criticism.html

Hmhm I agree, with one nuance;

If both partners are Masters (that is not disasters) you could still have troubles having a relationship together due to socionics intertype dynamics.

so while Socionics is not everything. It's also not "nothing". It can help you explain something if/when the other explanations are not working.

[Olduvai]

If you have ever met your dual partner only to discover that they are extremely difficult to handle and you can not get along with them

not possible

A dual partner can be abusive, critical, mean, predatory, dominating, selfish, etc.

disagree



bottom line: if there isn't chemistry, if there isn't mutual understanding/respect, then you aren't duals. duals naturally understand and appreciate each others' points of view.

[Reficulris]

not possible




disagree



bottom line: if there isn't chemistry, if there isn't mutual understanding/respect, then you aren't duals. duals naturally understand and appreciate each others' points of view.

Seems overly simple, socionics deals with the information elements, but the content of those elements could still be a source of conflict right?

Let me try to give an example, I find my dual, but she's a racist and hates my black guts, do you think that relationship would work as "any" duality?

I'm not so sure duality => guaranteed win. I think it's more of a "best chances to have great communication" but that might not be enough to bridge huge gaps in differences in socioeconomical status, religious believes etc..

[miss BabyDoll]

while duality is often described as two TIMs that fit eachother ideally based on their mutual complementarity it neededn't always be the case. sure, this complementarity allows them to interact productively on all levels since egoblock functions of one partner fill the expectations of other partner's super ego functions, but what are the actual standards that say that those functions in an individual are sufficiently developed to have a healthy relationship in general? life experience, personality, willingness to work on self-advancement are all factors that have massive role in how one develops as an individual. if the individual is unhealthy or unstable or in otherwords his functions are nowhere as developed as they should be even if he meets his dual the relationship would probably be unsuccessful. duality is often considered as instant formula for true love where when two duals meet every potentially existent problem works itself out without having to need to work on it. duality isn't a guarantee of physical attraction either- plenty of duals who are just friends or collegues. bottom line - it takes more than synchronicity of model A TIMs for things to work out. Dual relations only imply a certain close psychological distance and ease of interaction. If partners are not compatible with each other in other ways, but form a relationship anyway, they will have unresolvable conflicts despite the psychological comfort.
duality in theory only guarantees that if such couple was to have issues the likelyhood of the separation is lesser than in anyother intertype relation due to internal synchronicity of partners functions.

[Olduvai]

Seems overly simple

sorry, simplifying is what I do:

In inductive thinking reasoning proceeds the other way around. Observing and comprehending complex phenomena, inductive thinking reduces them to generalized diagrams and models stripped of details. Involutionary types break down and simplify the situation in order to understand it. Reasoning flows in reverse order from complex to simple.

Let me try to give an example, I find my dual, but she's a racist and hates my black guts, do you think that relationship would work as "any" duality?

in that particular case, I'm not sure you'd even have the chance to meet.

I'm not so sure duality => guaranteed win. I think it's more of a "best chances to have great communication" but that might not be enough to bridge huge gaps in differences in socioeconomical status, religious believes etc..

fair enough. my point is, if you've met someone whom you can't get along with and who is extremely difficult to handle, then I'd say the odds are they're not your dual.

[IBTL]

If you meet your dual and you find them attractive and you pursue a relationship with them, then the success of the relationship does not depend upon socionics but upon the emotional nurturance of the partners. That is to say John Gottman's explanation of a master and disaster are entirely based upon how a person nurtures within a relationship. This has nothing to do with their biological predisposition nor their personality type. So an ESFJ type that has a healthy disposition will act in accordance with the description of a master. That is someone who is considerate, honest, kind, giving, etc. As such they are most favourable for a relationship independent of the other persons type. They will be a master in their relationship wheather they are paired with an INTJ, ESFJ, ENTP, etc. Since they are a master in their relationship, they are more likely to have a healthy and happy relationship. The same is true of the disaster.

If you have ever met your dual partner only to discover that they are extremely difficult to handle and you can not get along with them then that has nothing to do with socionics nor duality. If you or your dual partner are a disaster in a relationship then that will be the source of destruction within the relationship. A dual partner can be abusive, critical, mean, predatory, dominating, selfish, etc. Such traits diminish emotional trust and intimacy. So to clarify once more. If an individual is a master in their relationships then that will be a more vital factor in the health and happiness regardless of their socionic relationships.

I think you're overgeneralizing what people need from relationships, because each person's needs are individualistic regardless of if they have adaptive or maladaptive needs.

For example, I usually need more from my partner than an SLE would ever be willing to give. Instead, they seem to want "to be loved" so much so that they will churn and burn through people, and the best way that I know how to deal with that aspect of their personality is to be unusually cruel to them, which is maladaptive indeed.

[bolong]

I think the mistake people make is equating duality with romance, romantic partners, dating, marriage.

I *believe* I have experienced duality in combination with sexual attraction, it was without a doubt different from anything I had experienced before, in terms of interpersonal relationships. It was also a disaster that negatively affected both of us, until one of us (me) got the fuck out of there.

I also have a younger cousin who is my dual. Because we are not romantically involved, I don't text/call her all the time, and I don't get pissed off if she doesn't reply. The times we actually have met and hung out are rare, but during those times we "dualize," everything we say and do harmonizes somehow on its own. We don't even realize until the end of the day, and then we're like "shit, today was really fun." I think I only truly understood why duality is great after the times I hung out with her, my little cousin.

In both of these situations, I was the only one aware of socionics and "duality." I think this "phenomenon" exists on its own, outside of socionics, and people recognize it even though they may not have a word for it. In romantic relationships, things get cluttered because there are so many other explanations for everything you feel - "opposites attract" "love at first sight" etc. In non-romantic relationships, everything is much clearer ---

When I first met my LSI boyfriend, he had two very close friends. One was an IEE, his conflictor, but also an old friend from college. The other was an EIE that he met through work. On the outside, both these friends seemed the same. Extraverted, ethical types that kept up a pleasant emotional atmosphere for an LSI who couldn't create that on his own. His relationship with the IEE was sustained through their college bond, even though they disagreed a lot, and got fed up after being around each other for too long. His relationship with the EIE was not sustained by anything, in fact the EIE had even gone to a rival college. But they had a compatibility which both recognized, they started living together soon, and could spend days in each other's company without realizing how much time had passed.

When I entered the picture I made them all take personality tests. I explained to my bf and the EIE that they were an LSI-EIE duality pair, and they were neither surprised nor interested. No wonder, they said, how else would we be living together for so many years? Their friendship is still the most solid example of duality I have ever witnessed, but even that didn't last. The LSI moved out to live with me, they are now in different parts of the world and rarely speak to each other. When they do, though....

[krieger]

i've never met a TRUE dual that i didn't profoundly like.

[aisa]

I agree with duality not being reserved only for the romantic relations. I'd say a lot affects how duality (romantic or non-romantic) plays out irl - age and life experiences being probably top of the list, then Enneagram (which I believe to be partially linked with the said experiences) and instinct stackings.
I have had quite a few Delta STs in my life lately and people are in the end much more than any type can "predict".

Having said that, while I like LSEs, I think even among them a combo of e1 so/sp would likely fairly quickly drive me up the wall/wear me out... (although maybe there would be someone of this combo that I would get on with, after all type is not everything).

[chip]

Hey thanks for reading my post and sharing your two cents - I read all your replies. I'll try to clarify my stance specifically to heavynurse and lecter (and anyone who shares their point of view). First I must ask you to suspend your judgement of socionics and examine a relationship with an open-mind. Admittedly that can be difficult for some more than others, because that means we have to admit that we do not entirely know the causation behind people's behaviour and that makes us vulnerable to error. However, such inadequacy makes us human and we gain a sense of renewed freedom by releasing our prejudices from our thoughts. The main prejudice is that duality is the best relationship and that is all we have to consider. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have dated women who are my dual partners and I can honestly say that each individual gave and took something different from the relationship. I need not cite exact examples, instead I will simply say that everyone is different even if that means contradicting the idea of 'identical' types within socionics. Likewise, I have met many duals whose personality is identical but appearance is obviously not. To dismiss the appearance is absurd for that is the representation of their physical identity. Furthermore, I have had relations with conflictors who have certainly caused a degree of psychological confusion or discomfort but they have not left me traumatized nor psychologically scarred unlike some abusive people have, namely some rather unpleasant duals. I have learned this from experience so please do not refute these statements under the grounds of logic. It is totally absurd to presume that someone with a history of cheating, lying, violence, gambling, drug use, racisim, or whatever other vice you can name, that, they will suddenly stop all that because they have 'found' their dual! They may be physically attractive and they may want the same things as you but if their behaviour is intolerable then you have a choice in the matter to decide to leave them irregardless of socionics.

To continue to regard socionics as infallable is an error in judgement and an error in interpretation. That is naive and immature. Socionics is knowledge of psychological types and we can gather as much information as we want, whether it be this website or another, but that can not substitute that for our real life experiences. What I have discovered is that knowledge of socionics and personality types is remarkably different from what we can experience in real life (the difference can be slight or large). It is easy to say socionics is real when we get along with our duals and that the theory holds true but when you experience the contrary well then you are left baffled and thrown into a whirl wind. You may ask yourself: how can this be? At such times, it is best to trust your instincts rather than listen to your thoughts which are far too educated and far too inexperienced to comprehend the reality of your situation.

The reason is that our expectations do match our experiences. That is the danger of prejudice and that is what I am trying to address and warn people no to fall into. Personally, I have allowed myself to become prejudice and to assume that once I begin a relationship with a dual and we get over the intial humps then it will be nothing but a walk in the park. I was wrong! Why? My interpretation of socionics was flawed. I did not know enough about real life and human experience.

However, what I find even more interesting is that I'm very capable of finding many other types, in addition to my dual, attractive. That is to say I'm attracted to and interested in other types besides my dual partner even when given equal chance. In other words, it seems to me that I am fully capable of falling in love with any type, and unless I am mistaken, that you, whoever you are, can too. I can not draw too grand a conclusion since I am mortal and live only one life. I can not say that I can find an everlasting love with any type, that defies human experience. It seems to me that love is not exclusively felt toward your socionics dual partner. You can develop a strong bond with anyone given the right circumstances. All the more I would encourage people to experience love in many forms with many people and perhaps that way you would develop a greater appreciation for your dual because then you realise how different being with your dual partner is as compared to other relations. I do not infer the degree of that difference to be great or shallow until I have experienced it, so again I will not preclude the effects of duality.

As a point of interest I am currently dating an ENFJ and the relationship is progressing nicely. We treat each other fairly and compassionately. It is a good relationship no doubt and I do not have wandering eyes. She seems to be happy at this point in our relationship too.

Likewise, I'd like to point out that one of my best friends is an INFP who I get along with great. On the other hand, I feel nothing but absolutely hatred for an INFP whom I work with. Psychologically they are identical but how I feel is really the difference between love and hate.