Do you need your dual?

[olduser]

you asked the wrong question. No one needs their dual. The correct question would have been: What makes the ESFp and INTp compatible and how does each benefit from the relation?

INTps like to study people's(and objects') personal habits and behaviours. These could concern personal economics, relationships, and anything. Who could provide more data than the ESFp?

Everyone has met their dual. You have met every single socionic type. Perhaps you haven't been close to a person of each type, but met, yes.

[Jarno]

you asked the wrong question. No one needs their dual.

everyone needs their dual, to make give in for their subcounscious needs. You feel more complete with your dual. Of course you can live without one. But you can also live without a car or a house. but is that a good life?

[olduser]

needs are things that for all practical purposes you can't live without. A car is something you need if you live in a suburb to a larger city.

[Kim]

you asked the wrong question. No one needs their dual.

everyone needs their dual, to make give in for their subcounscious needs. You feel more complete with your dual. Of course you can live without one. But you can also live without a car or a house. but is that a good life?

My life with a dual was a good life, but it was not a complete life. You do not feel more complete with your dual, you feel comfortable. There is no magic feeling of having arrived. Life is easy and comfortable with a dual, conversations are productive and enjoyable, and there are few misunderstandings. But the rest is up to the individuals. There is no magic. Just two people in a relationship that are basically compatible, but always come with baggage.

Seriously people: duality is not magic and you can be as happy with any types as you can be with your dual. Comfort and ease help a lot, but they don't complete your life. That's a myth.

[Jarno]

Seriously people: duality is not magic and you can be as happy with any types as you can be with your dual. Comfort and ease help a lot, but they don't complete your life. That's a myth.

oke, that experience that you describe, I can relate to it. Altough it doesn't make your life complete it fulfills your psychological need and it offers you a soulmate. But oke, it's not that every problem in your life is solved.

But the part about being happy with any type is certainly untrue. I lived with my conflictor for some years. It certainly was conflict exactly the way it is described in detail in lots of socionics sites. There certainly is a difference in living with types. And sometimes I even dare to wonder if NOT living with your dual is just a wast of valueble time...

[Kim]

oke, that experience that you describe, I can relate to it. Altough it doesn't make your life complete it fulfills your psychological need and it offers you a soulmate. But oke, it's not that every problem in your life is solved.

No, it does not offer you a soulmate any more than any other type does. Duality is easy and comfortable, but everything beyond that is not type-related.

But the part about being happy with any type is certainly untrue. I lived with my conflictor for some years. It certainly was conflict exactly the way it is described in detail in lots of socionics sites. There certainly is a difference in living with types. And sometimes I even dare to wonder if NOT living with your dual is just a wast of valueble time..

I am very happy with an ENTj currently and in some ways happier than I ever was with my dual. In other ways less happy. It requires more communication and effort, but it's also more exciting and activating. Living with your dual has its drawbacks, too.

Of course conflict would be difficult, but duality can be difficult, too, depending on the circumstances. I think you are overrating duality. People are people in the end. I really don't understand how people can limit themselves like that. See people as people, not as a combination of letters.

[KSpin]

See people as people, not as a combination of letters.

I have to keep asking myself, why are people so afraid of being able to be categorised? Honestly, why does it matter whether you can or can't be identified by some letters?

[Kim]

See people as people, not as a combination of letters.

I have to keep asking myself, why are people so afraid of being able to be categorised? Honestly, why does it matter whether you can or can't be identified by some letters?

It matters when you consider any romantic relationship that is not with your dual a waste of time. Come on.

[Jarno]

I really don't understand how people can limit themselves like that. See people as people, not as a combination of letters.

I can make this clear with a simple example:

Why should you buy your favourite car.
cars are cars...
Why should you buy a ferrari, a ford sierra is the same...


why don't even become homosexual?? a person is a person... wether men or woman.


well, i can see and feel the different relations very well. So that's the reason I want a dual relationship.

[Jarno]

But, in other cases it's pretty crazy how much importance people put on type.

well is it crazy to let your bathroom be fixed by a plumber instead of a friend of you who know's nothing about bathrooms?

is it crazy to ask somebody who's a mathprofessor to give lectures to a math class. Why not ask your neighbour who is drunk all the time?


What i'm saying is that the cognitive functions that a person has developed are his personal tools. And with those tools they can support your weak subcounscious, or for example conflict in your counscious. And you don't prefer the first???

I claim, it's very important to choose the right person. As the examples above are very clear in that.

Bring on your counter arguments please. :wink:

[Blaze]

if you're bought into the socionics theory, it's hard to let go of the idea of finding your dual.

i relate to this discussion because i am bought into socionics....and my marriage to my look alike failed after 15 years. but there are any number of reasons for that including socionics compatibility.

i think what it boils down to how hard do you want to have to work at the relationship. with a conflict, it would be a lot of hard work but not impossible. i've seen people post here about being happily married to their conflict. but there are other relationships which are easier than conflict but not as easy as dual, right? illusionary, benefit, activity, semi-dual. etc etc.

the second thing is do you have the relationship skills you need to navigate a relation with a dual or a non dual? you don't have a lot of control over your temperament or type, but you do have control over how you handle things in a relationship of any kind. sometimes i think it's better to work towards developing your skills and then, along side that, use socionics as a way to understand yourself and others.

i've been attracted to and drawn to the following relations: activity, i'm the benefactor, semi-dual, illusionary, lookalike. probably have been attracted to my dual but honestly don't feel i know many of them. notice no relation in the opposing quadra, and most of the relations in the quadra i face not the one that faces me.

so i conclude that there is something to socionics....in practical application. i'm not attracted to gamma and not much to delta. it's either alpha or beta, mostly beta. a person simply isn't likely to be attracted to someone who can't help them at least in some way or to someone that they can help.

how much help? dunno. after 42 years of living on the planet i feel like i've developed my dual seeking function on my own; i'm not sure how much i need someone else for that. hidden agenda: different story. i love Fe! :-) thanks to all you esfj's isfp's enfj's and infp's!!! i still need ya!

[olduser]

See people as people, not as a combination of letters.

I have to keep asking myself, why are people so afraid of being able to be categorised? Honestly, why does it matter whether you can or can't be identified by some letters?

Socionics is very limiting with only 16 types. It only makes sense to deny(in your words, be afraid) categorization with such limiting terms and many many people. That many people in that small of a space really doesn't work. People have similarities with their type, but differences as well. We should give way to both; people who do categorize themselves who have a more collective nature. And people who don't categorize themselves and have a more individual nature. And kim's point was not about labelling yourself, it was about relationships containing a bit more spontaneity/freedom than combinations of 16 'types' can assess and define

[KSpin]

See people as people, not as a combination of letters.

I have to keep asking myself, why are people so afraid of being able to be categorised? Honestly, why does it matter whether you can or can't be identified by some letters?

Socionics is very limiting with only 16 types. It only makes sense to deny(in your words, be afraid) categorization with such limiting terms and many many people. That many people in that small of a space really doesn't work. People have similarities with their type, but differences as well. We should give way to both; people who do categorize themselves who have a more collective nature. And people who don't categorize themselves and have a more individual nature. And kim's point was not about labelling yourself, it was about relationships containing a bit more spontaneity/freedom than combinations of 16 'types' can assess and define

I see such things as Socionics to merely be a framework. People's 'basic' personality types are those being modelled and categorised, but you will also have your own quirks and perculiarities. It's my belief that you can be quite happy in being categorised into one of those 'small spaces', and yet retain your freedom or 'free will' (which is really what all this is about).
You'd never be able to create a model to perfectly match everybody with a description, or at least it would take a ridiculously long time. But you can, at least, create a basic model, which will give a rough guideline as to what to expect/how people act/what people think.

[Jarno]

of course you can be categorised.

we call some people "man" and others "woman".

nobody is complaining when you catagorise them like that...

So I also don't understand why some people complain that catagorising with socionics is wrong.

[Kim]

It's not about the categorization itself, it's about what you do with it and how much it affects your life.
I see a slight difference between "I will never be happy with a partner who is not female" and "I will never be truly
happy with a type other than my dual."

Plus gender is a tad easier to determine than type.

[Exodus]

It's not about the categorization itself, it's about what you do with it and how much it affects your life.
I see a slight difference between "I will never be happy with a partner who is not female" and "I will never be truly
happy with a type other than my dual."

I have rarely heard anyone say that. It sounds like you are trying to dispel a myth that does not exist.

Plus gender is a tad easier to determine than type.

All that means is that people have a harder time understanding type. The analogy is perfectly valid, especially since people ignorantly ignore gender differences all the time. To ignore type differences (the ones that actually exist, of course) is no better, if you acknowledge that socionics is valid at all.

[Kim]

I was responding to this:

everyone needs their dual, to make give in for their subcounscious needs. You feel more complete with your dual. Of course you can live without one. But you can also live without a car or a house. but is that a good life?

[Kim]

[quote="thehotelambush"]

Plus gender is a tad easier to determine than type.

All that means is that people have a harder time understanding type. The analogy is perfectly valid, especially since people ignorantly ignore gender differences all the time. To ignore type differences (the ones that actually exist, of course) is no better, if you acknowledge that socionics is valid at all.

Nobody is ingoring type differences. But please don't ignore that people are more than their types. Characteristics can be altered by experience, the people you surround yourself with, the relationships you are in. Your outlook can change, your needs can change. Your basic type stays the same because your preferences stay the same. But priorities can certainly change, which makes this glorification of duality pointless.

And I will go as far as to say that whoever says this is not true needs to live a little.

[KSpin]

[quote="Kim"]

Plus gender is a tad easier to determine than type.

All that means is that people have a harder time understanding type. The analogy is perfectly valid, especially since people ignorantly ignore gender differences all the time. To ignore type differences (the ones that actually exist, of course) is no better, if you acknowledge that socionics is valid at all.

Nobody is ingoring type differences. But please don't ignore that people are more than their types. Characteristics can be altered by experience, the people you surround yourself with, the relationships you are in. Your outlook can change, your needs can change. Your basic type stays the same because your preferences stay the same. But priorities can certainly change, which makes this glorification of duality pointless.

And I will go as far as to say that whoever says this is not true needs to live a little.

As long as you're not saying that Socionics is pointless, like some people, I'll let it slide.

[Exodus]

I was responding to this:

everyone needs their dual, to make give in for their subcounscious needs. You feel more complete with your dual. Of course you can live without one. But you can also live without a car or a house. but is that a good life?

It's a valid point, although a little exaggerated.

You might say that your Dual is a nice car, whereas your Conflictor is a crappy car, the other relations being different modes of transportation that suit some of your needs, which you can live a happy life with, but you feel there is a little something missing.

What could the others be...

Activity: boat (enjoyable but not very practical)
Mirror: Segway (interesting but can be irritating/confusing)
Semidual: sports car (cool but overwhelming)
Illusionary: plane (think sleeping on planes)
Contrary: minivan
Identical: walking
Look-a-like: bike
Comparative: subway (efficient but clearly not ergonomic)
Beneficiary: rickshaw
Supervisor: spaceship
Supervisee: wagon (have to pull it along behind you)

*will finish later*

[olduser]

kim's right everyone else is wrong

[Exodus]

But priorities can certainly change, which makes this glorification of duality pointless.

What kind of priorities?

[Kim]

The car analogy makes me cringe, but let's see. I had these cars ( ):

Dual: a nice car
Illusionary: plane (think sleeping on planes)
Contrary: minivan
Beneficiary: rickshaw

No, absolutely not. Contrary and minivan? That was more like a constantly stalling sportscar - really fun when it was working, but totally frustrating when the transmission kept skipping gears back and forth. Illusionary was a concorde that crashed badly, duality was a comfortable car that couldn't be parked anywhere. Beneficiary is like a nice speedy car (yes, I really like sportscars) that requires some getting used to because the gears are a little rough, but it's fun to drive and has this twinkle in the headlights when the passengers quarrel about how to best navigate this baby through town.

I am saying that in each of my relationships, many many factors influened its success. Some of those guys had had bad relationship experiences. Some had difficult families. My current boyfriend has lived in four different countries, worked in many different professions and dated different types of women. All of that shaped his behaviors, outlook on life, attitude towards people, and also the way he processes information.

As for priorities, I had different priorities in my life when I was younger. I wanted relationships to be exciting and energizing. I still want that, but I now need my downtimes and I enjoy quiet evenings at home. I have had to take care of Si and Te matters by myself for most of my life (with some very valued Te input from my mom, but I have not lived close to her in 8 years) and I am doing just fine. The one thing I will admit is that I really enjoy being around a Te type because I love Te, I love Te conversations, and I need Te input when I get paranoid because my Ne goes into overdrive and my Te shuts down. So it's great to have a Te-type around. And interestingly enough, when I first met him, the conversation was very Te, very energizing and interesting. It was the same with my ISTp ex.

But each and every relationship I had was good in its own right and every single one had its drawbacks. Socionics is great at explaining certain tendencies and interaction patterns, but it should not be used as a means to predict a relationship. People are a bit more complex than cars...

[Kim]

That was such a NeFi reply...

[FDG]

kim's right everyone else is wrong

ye

[Exodus]

You are a biological organism. Every single one of your tendencies and behaviors can, at least theoretically, be explained scientifically. Accept it.

[Kim]

You are a biological organism. Every single one of your tendencies and behaviors can, at least theoretically, be explained scientifically. Accept it.

That, to me, is irrelevant when people are talking about only wanting to date their dual. Whether it's biological or social, many factors come into play when you are in a serious relationship that Socionics does not account for. That was my point.

In a serious relationship with someone you live with over a prolonged period of time, even your dual will show quirks and habits that annoy can annoy you and another type might not have those habits or traits. Slacker_Mom said she does not necessarily talk all that much with her husband. The amount of talking was something I very much appreciated in my dual relationship with a comparably talkative ISTp. Not every single representative of your dual is going to be a good match anyway, so why run the risk of limiting yourself to something you might never find? And if you expect being with other types to be less than being with a dual, it will be less. You surely will find the function clashes if you keep analyzing.

But the bottom line is that the comfort and ease of duality is easily influenced by outside factors. And so are other characteristics of other relations. I do not see the point of telling someone you like and get along with: "sorry dear, you are not my dual. We cannot be together because I want a nicer car that might or might not be out there for me."

[aestrivex]

You are a biological organism. Every single one of your tendencies and behaviors can, at least theoretically, be explained scientifically. Accept it.

!??!??!?!?!???!?!?!????!?!???!????!???!?????!????? ??!!!!?!!??

[Exodus]

Kim, I don't exactly disagree with anything you have said; I'm dating my activity partner currently. But I still believe there is nothing wrong with looking for your dual. How far you want to take that is an individual decision, of course.

You are a biological organism. Every single one of your tendencies and behaviors can, at least theoretically, be explained scientifically. Accept it.

!??!??!?!?!???!?!?!????!?!???!????!???!?????!????? ??!!!!?!!??

I take it you believe otherwise?

[aestrivex]

suggesting that all aspects of human behavior can be modeled scientifically is sort of like taking a random number generator and suggesting that all of its outputs can be modeled scientifically.

and by scientifically, i do not mean that it is acceptable to say that the output will be an integer between 0 and 10000000 (the assumed capacity of the generator; not a realistic actual capacity). continuing the analogy, it might be scientifically useful to deduce, say, that the output would be an integer between 0 and 20.

[Exodus]

suggesting that all aspects of human behavior can be modeled scientifically is sort of like taking a random number generator and suggesting that all of its outputs can be modeled scientifically.

and by scientifically, i do not mean that it is acceptable to say that the output will be an integer between 0 and 10000000 (the assumed capacity of the generator; not a realistic actual capacity). continuing the analogy, it might be scientifically useful to deduce, say, that the output would be an integer between 0 and 20.

Fair enough. Whether something as complex as human behavior can be predicted with unlimited accuracy is still an open question, in a practical sense.

I'm still trying to figure out whether there is any sense in saying that physical law is "completely described" or that the universe is inconsistent. I don't think so, especially because of the number generator metaphor.

[KSpin]

It's still a highly polarised issue in science, whether everything that happens is 'pre-determined' or whether there is such a thing as true randomness. Although Einstein said that 'God does not play with dice', there are some that believe there is evidence to suggest that some aspects of Quantum Physics display true random characteristics.

[Exodus]

It's still a highly polarised issue in science, whether everything that happens is 'pre-determined' or whether there is such a thing as true randomness. Although Einstein said that 'God does not play with dice', there are some that believe there is evidence to suggest that some aspects of Quantum Physics display true random characteristics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalities

Change my earlier statement to "full accuracy within the limits of quantum mechanics".