Good and Bad Relationships, Fix them or Keep them

[metaiwan]

I think socionics as a 'science' is real concrete in saying some relationships are better than others. What I wanna know is how other people feel personally about this, especially if you are in a relationship. Socionics says dualization is the optimal relationship for marriage, and I gotta agree out of first hand experience. But what about other people who are in relationships which aren't dual? Ranging from good(look a like, illusionary) to bad(conflict, quasi-identical). I wonder what socionics recommends for socionics marriage conseloers(horrible butchering of my own language) ? Say, well this is why you are having the problems, so to fix them you must break it and find a dual or live with these problems for the rest of your relationship. In other words, can relationships be 'accounted for' as in consciously trying to change the relationship with better knowledge of the nature of it, or simply are what they are and will never change. Also, do you or would you want to date someone who is not your dual, assuming you understand socionics and subscribe to it's theory?

Now that I've asked the question, lemme give you my opinion... From personal experience this is my stance. Other people, they can have whatever relationship they want, it won't bother me. But I know people who will stay in bad relationships(bad as in bad socionics relationships and bad as in bad literal, anybody would say they're bad relationships) thinking 'We can fix this, this will past'. Personally I think those people are doomed and will continue to have problems or even neuroses because of trying to 'fix' an unfixable relationship. But not from knowing socionics theory, but simply seeing a bad relationship and saying, you know, sometimes people just don't work together. Personally, I've had dual relationships, and they've been the closest I've ever had. Before I knew about socionics. I would never consider a non dual for marriage, but I'd date almost anyone(besides conflict probablly) at least as much as I could stand(out of curiousity and out of trying to get laid of course). I see socionics relationships as Baskins Robbins, gotta try all 14(or 13) flavors.

[MysticSonic]

To me, the answer to the questions obvious. It seems silly to keep any ties to a relationship that seems like it's heading through a downward spiral, however I also do not think one should throw away a relationship simply because one is aware of the possible hardships due to the knowledge of the current type of relationship according to Socionics as the current knowledge of your type is may or may not neccesarily reflect your true type, thus making a decision based on it completely nonsensical and idiotic. Yet, Socionics does seem like a great tool in deciding what partner you may want to go after.

[CuriousSoul]

It is a difficult question. In my opinion socionics could help understand other people's behaviour and to adjust even to unfavorable relationships.
For example people need support on their fifth and sixth functions but one must be careful not to hit on the painful fourth function.

But as always it takes a lot of good will from both parties and using socionics in marriage counselling could be risky as it might well encourage people to simply divorce. In a sense relationship is also a kind of investment you have made getting to know each other, adjusting to each other peculiarities and creating common memories. With a new relationship you have to begin all over again and even duality does not guarantee happiness.


In theory duality should be ideal but I have seen a long term duality couple (ISTP man ENFP woman) split up and a quasy-identical couple (ESFP man ESFJ woman) get on quite well so love does seem more complicated than any theory can be. Basically the socionics relationsip chart does though seem remarkbly accurate and I belive I have reliably identified quite a many duality couples. These relationships seem to be usually quite happy and loving, so for a long term relationship either duality or identical would seem ideal.

Sorry about my first post, somehow my keyboard seemt to stop working. I am from Finland and English is not my mother tongue, so if you do not understand something it is probably my slightly weird "Esperanto-English".
You could also send me a G-mail invite if you still have any left...

[metaiwan]

Yeah, I definately agree love is complicated and socionics is not 'real world' etc. I try to make sure I don't see people as types, but as people who have types. Imagine two people who like each other with conflicting types. They may like each other, and may try to have a relationship, and may run into problems. Yet they still try to make the relationship work. Nature is unfortunately working against them.

Something I've noted about intertype relations is they play a major part whenever just talking with another person. I think just about everyone is good, of any type, but most peope have problems communicating their real selves and values to other people(who may or may not understand them to a certain degree).

[Creepy-Гос]

Yeah, I definately agree love is complicated and socionics is not 'real world' etc. I try to make sure I don't see people as types, but as people who have types. For instance ESFP is my conflict, and I know someone of this type who I like as a person, but would never consider a relationship with because I can feel the conflict even at far psychological distance.

Something I've noted about intertype relations is they play a major part whenever just talking with another person. I know someone of contrasting relationships(function of correction, function of correction, direct order), who I cannot escape correcting and can't avoid them correcting me, constantly. Another example of liking the person, getting annoyed at the intertype relation. I know I'm not just making this up to validate this theory, I have a chat log which is almost hilarious if you consider the correctiive functions. Ever other sentence is "yeah, but" (then some kind of correction). I think just about everyone is good, of any type, but most peope have problems communicating their real selves and values to other people(who may or may not understand them to a certain degree).

детский сад прямо.

[metaiwan]

"kindergarden directly" is how it's translating, which doesn't make much sense to me. maybe its an insult, I have no idea. it'd be nice to be insulted in my own language tho if that's what it is.

[MysticSonic]

metawain, is it safe to assume that you're the admin?

[metaiwan]

yeah, it's me. i don't like the 'admin' thing. too impersonal

[discourse]

When human is ready to be grown up, then s/he is sexually matured. Need for love is basic then. If the relation is not duality or not from your quadra, then people should find ways to live together. Then we need people skills to live with each other. Usual marriage comes up from that. :twisted:

[Creepy-]

You all seem to forget one important thing that intertype relations are the relations between the types of people not the people themselves.

[metaiwan]

You all seem to forget one important thing that intertype relations are the relations between the types of people not the people themselves.

The relations between types greatly affects the relationships between real people...

[Creepy-]

You all seem to forget one important thing that intertype relations are the relations between the types of people not the people themselves.

The relations between types greatly affects the relationships between real people...

No doubt about that, but you cannot disregard interpersonal connections between people and rely only on the intertype relations.

[metaiwan]

Now I totally agree with you on that. That's absolutely true. I think someone important once said "The map is not the territory." But you may have noticed after people get closer, more serious in their relationships(as in after having sex alot of the times), relationships seem to get very unstable. Why does that happen? That's what socionics tries to explain. Socionics is not biased. Observing people's relationships and figuring out why some do seem to work out better than others, finding correlations and building a theory and model to support it, then doing studies to confirm the model with facts. But I haven't said anything we don't know. In the short term, I agree with you. In the long term, some relationships will be in shambles if the relations aren't good enough. Are dual relationships the one and the only that will work? Of course not.

I think what you are trying to say is that you should never judge a relationship based on what socionics says it is or should be like. I think you're right on that. But once the relationship is over, or you have been through several different ones, maybe you would like to know if there is something better out there. Maybe you would like to know if it was your fault or the other person's it didn't work out, etc.

[Creepy-]

The map is not the territory
Isn't that what the internet is for? So you don't have to NOT know anything that is known?

But back to the discussion at hand, to be a science, a real science - wouldn't socionics have to have some predictive use? What good is it to say after the fact this is why it didn't work?

I'm distrustful of personality test (and anything Jung in general) because of the lack of falsablity of it. Then again I'm an INTP so you'd figured I'd think that way

[metaiwan]

I'm distrustful of personality test (and anything Jung in general) because of the lack of falsablity of it. Then again I'm an INTP so you'd figured I'd think that way

short answer: yes :wink:

I didn't know I was talking to an 'unbeliever'...I know there are plenty of INTps out there that do subscribe to the theory so I'm sure theres some way you can appriciate it. it is true it can be subjectively (and falsly) verified but I think some statistics are done to try to see if the theories check out, and I'm very interested to get ahold of them if I can. It really exists only in probability right now.

[abburdlen]

Sorry that was me.

Here is a way to check the validity of Socionics.
1: Have a sufficient number of folks take your handy test
2: Give them a report of their type but get 1/3 of the folks the complete opposite type another 1/3 a random type and the remain 1/3 the actual type
3: Add a field that asks how closely they feel the match was

Perhaps this deserves it's own thread though

[metaiwan]

i pmed you, check it.

I think these 'double blind' studies have been done, the problem is, they are all in russian somewhere and I can't find them...

[Raver]

Yes, some very good points are brought up at this very very recent discussion were having right now at this moment. I would say the best approach is to attempt a fix as the primary step and it fails then it is best to let go as the secondary step.

[FDG]

Something I've noted about intertype relations is they play a major part whenever just talking with another person.

YES. You can feel it after approx 20 seconds of talking, if not less.

[Raver]

Something I've noted about intertype relations is they play a major part whenever just talking with another person.

YES. You can feel it after approx 20 seconds of talking, if not less.

FDG, I agree with you on what you said about how we decide who we like subconsciously, since it coincides with socionics perfectly.

[FDG]

If it is subconscious, it's not a decision, isn't it?

[Raver]

If it is subconscious, it's not a decision, isn't it?

Ouch, my PoLR . LOL, true.

[FDG]

If it is subconscious, it's not a decision, isn't it?

Ouch, my PoLR . LOL, true.

Yeah I figured it would have been a PoLR hit so I tried to put it midly

[ScarlettLux]

Socionics makes me sad for this reason sometimes.

Each time I get into a relationship that isn't Socionics-approved (lol), I kinda get let down. I mean, right now - I'm with an ENFp who is extremely similar to me in all respects of music, movie taste.. conversation wise we have excellent discussions. But I always feel like there is some kind of barrier there of awkwardness... psychological distance anyone?

I really wish I didn't put so much thought into Socionics because sometimes I am not sure if I am messing up my own relationship myself because of my misgivings or if it is really not working because of Socionics issues.

Yikes.

I was just in a relationship with an ENTp beforehand, I have to admit, that was actually quite good and the only reason it ended was because of me not having the physical attraction anymore (shallow much?) Mhm.

I dunno, it seems I get along splendidly with most ENFps though. =/ As I stated many times, my best friend is an ENFp, my boyfriend is an ENFp... I'm like an ENFp magnet. :wink:

How does Socionics explain THAT?

[FDG]

Clubs (NT NF ST SF) tend to get togheter, usually.

In fact, before 20 years of age, I see most relationships being among SFs to be honest.

[ScarlettLux]

Clubs (NT NF ST SF) tend to get togheter, usually.

In fact, before 20 years of age, I see most relationships being among SFs to be honest.

Why do they tend to get together? I know it's a shared temperament... but wouldn't that mean they get along well with eachother on some level? =/ And if they are, what about the Quadras?

Is there some kinda difficulty in recognizing eachother? Hmm...

BTW, what do you mean by your last statement of most relationships being among SFs?

[Blaze]

huh. i'm trying not to type my main squeeze anymore. it's hard, since i've gotten so convinced of socionics that i kind of want him to be my dual. after 15 years with my lookalike ex, who can blame me exactly? i need and deserve a closer and more intimate and supportive relationship. plus i figure i've been socionicized by now so i should try to apply what i've learned.

but what i figure at this point is that it is better to look at yourself and your needs and be clear on that. kinda like be yourself and you'll attract your dual like rick says.

like if i find out he's not my dual then what. where does that take things. and you really know that it seems like astrology when you read descriptions that all sound like they apply, too. so in a way it's way too theoretical to apply to relationships....it's better for self understanding i think.

[FDG]

[quote="ScarlettLux"]

Clubs (NT NF ST SF) tend to get togheter, usually.

In fact, before 20 years of age, I see most relationships being among SFs to be honest.

Why do they tend to get together? I know it's a shared temperament... but wouldn't that mean they get along well with eachother on some level? =/ And if they are, what about the Quadras? [/qute]

Yeah, exactly - they get along well with each other, so they get toghether. After all, you didn't say that your relationship with the ENFps is bad - just that there's some lack in wavelenght, which is pretty different imho.

Quadras too are of a concern, although I read that usually people tend to get toghether following first the criteria of democracy-aristocracy (so groups split into alpha-gamma and beta-delta), then club.

Is there some kinda difficulty in recognizing eachother? Hmm...

In quadras I don't think so. Just that, say, usually STs hang togheter because they talk about sports, gadgets, computers, h0t women (lol), politics, etc etc etc

BTW, what do you mean by your last statement of most relationships being among SFs?

What I mean is that usually SFs are:

1)The most social types, so the most likely to actually get to know each other
2)The most interested and in thouch with the "practical" side of feelings, so the most likely to actually start relationships
3)Likely, also the best at attracting people - not necessarily because they're more attractive, but they're usually more easygoing than STs, less snobbish than NFs, less nerdy than NTs, etcc

So given those conditions, I think that it's easy for them to start a relationship and be attracted to each other when, maybe, young, they don't really think that a Thinker might be better for a relationship than another feeler (for example)