Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: Socionics: Why does my 'Dual' not Match up?

  1. #1
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Socionics: Why does my 'Dual' not Match up?

    Have you noticed, in terms of information metabolism, your 'dual' does not often match up with you? (I have experienced this quite often) I have heard a lot of theories as to why: "your type is wrong", "you've mistyped them", "socionics is just plain wrong"...

    Well, I have my answer: socionics only looks at external traits, not who is on the inside. Therefore, there are a lot of people who are wearing 'masks' that look like your dual, but who are simply a completely different type on the inside! This seems to be the case with my 'dual' all the time (is it not simply common that people wear an enthusiastic mask just for 'social reasons'...)

    This seems to be a better answer to me than the notion that socionics 'simply doesn't work'; it makes a ton of sense that there is some pattern to how people behave socially that is based on personality. However, it would not be the external traits that match up, but who the person is on the inside. Therefore, that could easily be what creates a lot of confusion about how people interact, and why 'his IM doesn't match up with mine.' Nonetheless, I think this could run deeper than simply that the types would match up if it weren't for who we are (or pretend to be) socially... I also wonder if the early stages of the development of socionics could have been misguided, because of this problem. Why? If for instance, John, an 'ILI' describes himself as a sober, sarcastic, deep thinker, and he matches up with Mary, a 'feisty' SEE, it could be that either of these types are wrong, because they are describing their social mask, not who they really are on the inside... In that case, socionics was probably developed based on external traits, and some of the types would therefore be mismatches because of it... This would lead one to question some of the categorizations of duality that are at the centre of socionics...

    In any event, I think the notions of 'relations,' 'dual,' and 'information metabolism' are generally correct - they seem to fit a clear pattern to how people interact socially... However, Model A would probably be better served if it were based on internal traits rather than external ones - for the reasons above and because that's essentially what makes people who they really are... In any event, I'd like to hear what you think... Is socionics wrong because it completely neglects internal traits? (I think it's probaby wrong for that reason, but there could still be convincing reasons to say otherwise...)
    LII

  2. #2
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you were born in your dual's arms you would recognize your dual right away like I do. My duals take care of the business matter. My dual cousin and I are taking a dance class and the instructors invited us to their place for a social. I haven't asked the dance class rates and she will take care of all of that

    I've had my share of fighting with forum members who mistyped themselves and attempting to tell them that they are LSE or that they are not.

    Socionics works, but then so does trial and error, but trial and error comes with a lot of heart aches, divorce, sadness, fighting etc.

    Socionics just describes a very natural process. Internally? IDK as a personal example, when I'm down my duals know how to cheer me up or just listen to me be sad.
    Last edited by Beautiful sky; 08-02-2016 at 06:50 AM.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The problem is that typing people in socionics almost always involves using pictures (V.I.) and videos, which therefore focuses more on external traits. I believe that to type someone, you really have to know them in person to have any sense of who they are...
    LII

  5. #5
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For instance, in my case, the intellectual side of things is absolutely vital, but it's not a big part of who I am socially nor do I immediately apprehend the world through the precise lens of logic. In other words, it's like comedy: some people are innately funny and view the world in humorous terms immediately and naturally. Other people love comedy, but see it more as a trade in which they appear appear on stage and make people laugh professionally. For one, humour is part of their personality. For the other, humour is a career. The case is exactly the same for me and intellectual matters - to me, 'Ti' is like a trade, and therefore absolutely vital. However, on a personal basis, though I care whether I make someone think or analyse, this is not to the same extent as it would be for career. Nonetheless, because it is not innately how I perceive the world, socionists would claim that I'm not good at logical matters or I don't value them - it took years, and I absolutely had to train myself to think this way, but, like someone who decided on a career in comedy, I am indeed good and value them.... Therefore, this could factor into my relations - maybe what my dual likes about me doesn't have anything to do with my mind at all, which is external, and so socionics is misleading... Anyway, that's something I've thought about for some time and is relevant to this thread...
    Last edited by jason_m; 08-02-2016 at 12:50 PM.
    LII

  6. #6
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,135
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That sounds like a problem you can solve for yourself. Not everyone is caught up by the external traits, because its possible to see past them and focus on other details.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  7. #7
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    2,549
    Mentioned
    377 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    For instance, in my case, the intellectual side of things is absolutely vital, but it's not a big part of who I am socially nor do I immediately apprehend the world through the precise lens of logic. In other words, it's like comedy: some people are innately funny and view the world in humorous terms immediately and naturally. Other people love comedy, but see it more as a trade in which they appear appear on stage and make people laugh professionally. For one, humour is part of their personality. For the other, humour is a career. The case is exactly the same for me and intellectual matters - to me, 'Ti' is like a trade, and therefore absolutely vital. However, on a personal basis, though I care whether I make someone think or analyse, this is not to the same extent as it would be for career. Nonetheless, because it is not innately how I perceive the world, socionists would claim that I'm not good at logical matters or I don't value them - it took years, and I absolutely had to train myself to think this way, but, like someone who decided on a career in comedy, I am indeed good and value them.... Therefore, this could factor into my relations - maybe what my dual likes about me doesn't have anything to do with my mind at all, which is external, and so socionics is misleading... Anyway, that's something I've thought about for some time and is relevant to this thread...
    You seem to me to be more IEI than LII. I have known a number of people of both types, and you strike me as one of the rare IEI's who either is, or has trained themselves to be, very Ti-oriented. This probably has major consequences for the "type" of dual you would seek.
    @SisOfNight has done a lot of thinking about this kind of thing on her blogs. You can find some of it here:
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...59#comment3959
    and here:
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...es-amp-Quadras

    FWIW, the female IEI whom you most remind me of married an ILE, had two kids, and divorced him, because he didn't think she should have a career. She told me that, to her, the most important feature in a mate is intelligence, and she has since dated some SLE's, but finds them too impulsive. She said the one's she's dated are fun to be around, but they either can't hold a steady job and/or they cheat. (I think she is generalizing, but that's what she said.)
    For her, her Dual doesn't come close to "matching up".

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,137
    Mentioned
    387 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I have heard a lot of theories as to why: "your type is wrong", "you've mistyped them"
    It's not theory. People have average typing matche <20%. Guess how good they type with it.
    If you find systematically the duality theory is wrong - you typed people wrong. Also duality relates only to some factors which make people to like/dislike each other, it has limits.

    > Well, I have my answer: socionics only looks at external traits, not who is on the inside.

    Socionics looks into psyche and how this is expressed in the behavior. It's evidently not just "external traits".

    > Therefore, there are a lot of people who are wearing 'masks' that look like your dual

    There are: bad typing skills, lack of info, wrong theory (like Reinin's bs) which leads you to wrong typing.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  9. #9
    Arete GuavaDrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Now in stores near you.
    TIM
    EIE 9w8-5-4 s?
    Posts
    1,524
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    The problem is that typing people in socionics almost always involves using pictures (V.I.) and videos, which therefore focuses more on external traits. I believe that to type someone, you really have to know them in person to have any sense of who they are...
    "Almost always" when you're online, sure, and even then not necessarily. Otherwise, what @Pookie said.
    Furthermore and for the sake of argument, people can use appearance to elicit an intuition about someone, which itself is not particularly external. Some studies show that humans can accurately deduce a surprising number of traits about a stranger based on appearance. Depends ofc on typer's skill at such intuitions (avoiding rank projection, etc.)

    In that sense, visuals online are meant to enhance the accuracy of a typing, but not to provide the sole basis for it.

    The Filatova portraits might be up your alley though. Typings based solely on interviews and long-term stability of self-concept.
    Reason is a whore.

  10. #10
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    You seem to me to be more IEI than LII. I have known a number of people of both types, and you strike me as one of the rare IEI's who either is, or has trained themselves to be, very Ti-oriented. This probably has major consequences for the "type" of dual you would seek.
    @SisOfNight has done a lot of thinking about this kind of thing on her blogs. You can find some of it here:
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...59#comment3959
    and here:
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...es-amp-Quadras

    FWIW, the female IEI whom you most remind me of married an ILE, had two kids, and divorced him, because he didn't think she should have a career. She told me that, to her, the most important feature in a mate is intelligence, and she has since dated some SLE's, but finds them too impulsive. She said the one's she's dated are fun to be around, but they either can't hold a steady job and/or they cheat. (I think she is generalizing, but that's what she said.)
    For her, her Dual doesn't come close to "matching up".
    I've figured out why it is that I doubt my type:

    I essentially struggle with socionics LII descriptions: "I know I have strong 'Ti', but why doesn't it match socionics INTj descriptions at all?" I know the answer: in MBTI, I am INTP. I fit a lot of the descriptions almost perfectly. E.g.: http://personalitypage.com/html/INTP.html. However, socionics LII descriptions don't match the INTP descriptions at all. Why? Here is the difference between MBTI INTJ and INTP:

    INTJ: Precise, self-confident, reasoning is more practical, more structured/organized, more practical about logic/career.

    INTP: Less precise, plagued by self-doubt, reasoning is more theoretical, not organized, more innovative about ideas/career.

    If you look at these two descriptions, INTJs are judging types, but they sound more NiTe (or TeNi) than TiNe, while INTPs are the exact opposite. Therefore, in socionics, INTJs match up with LII descriptions because they are structured, organized rational types, but INTPs might match up better functionally, because they are more realistically TiNe. Therefore, in my case, I am 'LII' because I am TiNe - not because I'm structured and organized. The discrepancy then comes from the descriptions - as I said, LII descriptions seem INTJ, but not really TiNe to me. Therefore, because functions are probably more important than descriptions, I am most likely LII, but I simply don't fit most of the descriptions. That might then explain the confusion I have been having. I hope that helps...
    Last edited by jason_m; 08-03-2016 at 09:10 AM.
    LII

  11. #11
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,244
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    For introverts the J/P seems to flip between MBTI and socionics while extroverts are usually the same type. I'm just generally speaking since I know the two systems are not the same.

  12. #12
    malna's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Poland
    TIM
    Ne EII
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I call myself batyote and I fight crime at night.

  13. #13
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have an even better insight: 'Even though I don't fit socionics descriptions of LIIs, how am I TiNe?' This is a question I've asked myself time and time again. I now have an answer: my intellectual side operates on two principles: 1) Observe the world in a way that is as objective as possible - this is an attempt to really survey things and see where I stand in an honest way. With respect to this function, I don't mean focus on the externals of the situation - I mean really look at things subjectively, but in a logical way. This can be expressed in subjects like philosophy or science, where you try to form a subjective opinion about things. This is my 'Ti.' Because I'm this way, I clash mainly with two kinds of people: 1) Negatvists - often 'ILI', 'LIE,' 'Gammas' (and sometimes EIEs). We clash because, while I'm trying to frame things in a way that is as logical as possible, they tend to have absolute negative judgements about people and things. Therefore, they see me as trying to 'sugar-coat' things - where in my eyes, I'm just trying to be objective. 2) Ethicists and Positivists - often 'IEEs' and 'ESEs.' The issue here is the exact opposite of the negativists: I'm trying to be objective, but they are sugar-coating things in my eyes; they don't understand that I'm not being negative but trying to observe things as objectively as possible.

    2) This is where I'm 'Ne' - and a positivist; now that I have observed the world accurately and have assessed where I stand, if things are bad, it's now time to do something positive (and creative) to change them. In other words, if life is a 'prison' that you're trapped in, it becomes time to plan your 'escape.' And you escape by making some sweeping positive change. Because of this, I'm constantly on the lookout for ideas, people, places - even things like medicines - that will make some positive change. In any event, I find this really clashes with people who have more 'practical' ideas. For instance, IEEs are the exact opposite. If I were to go to an IEE psychologist with a serious problem, they would first try and get me to look at things more positively - which clashes with my objectivity. Then, if that doesn't work, they would try to invoke some kind of 'practical' solution - which clahes with my creative approach. What I need is the exact opposite approach; first, we objectively assess where I stand, then we make some kind of sweeping, creative change to fix the problem. In other words, our types are almost inverted, so we really miscommunicate.

    Anyway, this is where I am now with my type. I hope it helps.
    Last edited by jason_m; 12-03-2016 at 05:28 AM.
    LII

  14. #14
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,135
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Expectations.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  15. #15
    stronger, faster, weirder
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE 8w9-2-5 SX/sp
    Posts
    1,445
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is supposed to be based on both internal and external traits. That is why we have the different blocks, and e.g. the "role" function. You should be typing yourself and others by considering both internal and external traits, and by understanding the core of the IEs and TIMs for what they are.

    A second issue is that obviously you need to take ITR with a grain of salt as well as your expectations of relationships with a grain of salt. ITR describes more average potential of compatibility, but it's based on dry theory and doesn't take into account many non-type-related factors. IME, in spite of duality being the top rated ITR, in your entire life you will probably only meet a small handful of duals, especially of the sex that you're attracted to, that you truly click with, and even less that would be considered true long term relationship potential. Duals often occupy opposite places in society and that can make it hard to find each other, and socionics states this. Opposites can attract, but when sexual attraction potential and opposites are added to the mix, it can obviously create a lot of opportunity for volatility and conflict--it's common sense. It doesn't mean there's a structural issue or applicability issue with socionics/model A. Another point of duality is that you're supposed to grow together over an extended period of time, and it's not necessarily supposed to be an easy process; if you are young and very much your own person, why would you seem to match up right away with an obvious opposite?
    Last edited by niffer; 12-02-2016 at 07:38 AM.

  16. #16
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,633
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @jason_m, while I think the concept of "dualization" has been exaggerated, people often do experience mental obstacles in accepting the element of their Suggestive function, and seeing it as a natural and beneficial thing that they are also personally deeply in need of. I would suggest that that applies here.

    I'm not sure where you got the idea that socionics is based only on external traits. Information metabolism is definitely internal, though it does manifest in external behavior.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Part of the issue in how a lot of people formulate the concept of duality is that they just define the two IE separately in a way that makes it totally ambiguous why
    they're dual to each other. I mean, if you defined two arbitrary things and asked them to be deeply interconnected, why would they be??

    It's really important to understand the "axes" in such a way that you really view the two components as complementary. I think a lot of accounts of the IE just don't make this evident.

  18. #18
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,633
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Part of the issue in how a lot of people formulate the concept of duality is that they just define the two IE separately in a way that makes it totally ambiguous why
    they're dual to each other. I mean, if you defined two arbitrary things and asked them to be deeply interconnected, why would they be??

    It's really important to understand the "axes" in such a way that you really view the two components as complementary. I think a lot of accounts of the IE just don't make this evident.
    This is absolutely 100% true. Why dual elements complement each other is one of the great mysteries of socionics, in part due to the fact that being aware of one of them almost by definition limits your awareness of the other one. I have some hypotheses about it. The primary goal of Model A2 is to explain the relationships between the IM elements: complementation, conflict, blocking, etc.

  19. #19
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    932
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe you are the Fe type? What you are writing is logical but how you write could easy be Fe. In my experiences.

    I was working with this guy the other day who gave me the LSI vibe but the day went and after it I felt sure he must be ESE. Sometimes people become what they like in others. Sometimes they mirror those who they spend time with?

    I guess the only way to type someone is to see how they deal with new information and not how they chose to be. Types have strong sides and weak sides and first deal with information in one way and later translate it into something which they later incorporate into themselves.

    I guess this guy I was working with somewhat mirror the type he feel attraction to and have some kind of mindset 'same attract the same'?

    I read the other day about some SLE who said he felt he had all this force and no motive for it and he believe the Ni have all this motive but not the force.

    Anyhow Socionics is build on Duality and the idea of it. One person grows in one direction therefor leaves a void for the dual to fil, so the life of the dual is somewhat a mystery for every person.

  20. #20
    Denn wir haben hier keine bleibende Statt entelecheia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    torn between the light and dark
    TIM
    FVLE
    Posts
    2,323
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    You seem to me to be more IEI than LII. I have known a number of people of both types, and you strike me as one of the rare IEI's who either is, or has trained themselves to be, very Ti-oriented. This probably has major consequences for the "type" of dual you would seek.
    @SisOfNight has done a lot of thinking about this kind of thing on her blogs. You can find some of it here:
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...59#comment3959
    and here:
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...es-amp-Quadras

    FWIW, the female IEI whom you most remind me of married an ILE, had two kids, and divorced him, because he didn't think she should have a career. She told me that, to her, the most important feature in a mate is intelligence, and she has since dated some SLE's, but finds them too impulsive. She said the one's she's dated are fun to be around, but they either can't hold a steady job and/or they cheat. (I think she is generalizing, but that's what she said.)
    For her, her Dual doesn't come close to "matching up".
    Actually, from the really authoritative things I've read, the subtypes like IEI-Ni and IEI-Fe are really just an accepting subtype with accentuated NT and a producing one with accentuated SF (these are for aristocratic quadras, democratic have ST and NF subtypes instead). Then you add on life experience and that could cause you to really have good . Also, this doesn't seem proven but it sort of makes sense to me, functions seem to be able to be accentuated to different degrees: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ons-by-Gulenko

    Also, believe it or not, a lot of SLEs are intelligent scientist/engineering/whatever types from my experience, but of course that's not the stereotype Illusory relations are just a bad idea though, please avoid these when getting married, especially if you want kids, but also even if not.

    Also, do you have to look sort of under the surface to properly type anyone, which can kind of extremely complicate things but it's still true.

  21. #21
    Heart Chamber Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    IEE 3w4
    Posts
    7,568
    Mentioned
    594 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Masks... that can point to e3 and e9 as well.

  22. #22
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I should also point out some of the potential flaws in my typing system:

    1) 'EIE' vs. 'ESE.' What then is Fe-leading? It is anyone who is merry, not objectivist, not E8, has more than 1D logic - and is potentially an emotivist. Anyone who is Fe-leading must fit this exact criteria - the closest match would be E7s. What then is the difference between EIE and ESE? ESEs are simply positivists who meet this criteria, while EIEs are always negativists. Any other characteristic - including whether they are Si or Ni simply does not factor in. Therefore, Sandra Bullock and Katy Perry (who are very different) would be the exact same type - as both are negativists that show all of these traits! Also, someone slightly different is a completely different type. For instance, an objectivist who meets this criteria would be considered LSE by default.

    2) 'IEEs.' An IEE is simply someone with 1D logic and an ethical type. This covers all people with these traits - including people who are potentially Fe like Robin Williams or Bronson Pinchot or even someone very different from this (i.e., E2s) like Reese Witherspoon or Richard Simmons. I essentially supervise them because I really notice their 1D Ti, and their ethical traits don't really bother me or move me.

    3) 'Te' vs. 'Ti.' Business logic is anything that relies heavily on factual memory. This includes almost any business process, but includes subjects that aren't typically considered Te, such as foreign languages and biology. OTOH, something really business-based that relies heavily on reasoning - such as economics - would be Ti. Ti subjects then would be physics, chemistry, math, computing - even philosophy. Something scientific then which relies on memory power - such as biology - would then be Te. Something like English Literature is 'borderline Ti.'

    4) Gamma quadra. Gammas are always negativists, serious and decisive - anyone else - whether there be some silliness or some positivity - slips through the cracks. They are Gamma because they are essentially the opposite of my dual and me. They clash with me because I try to be objective, while they are more likely to frame things in absolute negative judgements. This makes someone like Wittgenstein Gamma, while potential Gammas like Katy Perry slip through the cracks...

    Anyway, as you can see, my system is very subjective, and these are clearly some of the weak points in it, but maybe most people are making a similar mistake... Anyway, I would like to hear your comments on this.

    EDIT: 'Se' is almost always someone who is verbally abrasive/argumentative - maybe even abusive (e.g., Clint Eastwood). Someone who is physically domineering but not verbally domineering (e.g., "World's Strongest Man") simply slips through the cracks. Someone who is simply 'loud' verbally but not abrasive is usually 'Fe.'
    Last edited by jason_m; 12-05-2016 at 02:47 AM.
    LII

  23. #23
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,633
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    1) 'EIE' vs. 'ESE.' What then is Fe-leading? It is anyone who is merry, not objectivist, not E8, has more than 1D logic - and is potentially an emotivist. Anyone who is Fe-leading must fit this exact criteria - the closest match would be E7s.
    You don't need Enneagram to define socionics. It's best not to think about it as having any direct relation. Based on what little I know Type 2 fits ESE way better than Type 7.

    Also, Fe leading types are Constructivist in the Reinin sense (not that that means anything).

    Any other characteristic - including whether they are Si or Ni simply does not factor in.
    I would advise going by a functional approach way more than by Reinin dichotomies.

    An IEE is simply someone with 1D logic and an ethical type.
    Huh?

    3) 'Te' vs. 'Ti.' Business logic is anything that relies heavily on factual memory. This includes almost any business process, but includes subjects that aren't typically considered Te, such as foreign languages and biology. OTOH, something really business-based that relies heavily on reasoning - such as economics - would be Ti. Ti subjects then would be physics, chemistry, math, computing - even philosophy. Something scientific then which relies on memory power - such as biology - would then be Te. Something like English Literature is 'borderline Ti.'
    Te is not a subject area, it's a mental faculty, but yes it's involved in most of those fields.

    4) Gamma quadra. Gammas are always negativists, serious and decisive - anyone else - whether there be some silliness or some positivity - slips through the cracks. They are Gamma because they are essentially the opposite of my dual and me. They clash with me because I try to be objective, while they are more likely to frame things in absolute negative judgements. This makes someone like Wittgenstein Gamma, while potential Gammas like Katy Perry slip through the cracks...
    Huh? In the Reinin sense SEEs and LIEs are Positivists. Gammas are Serious, Decisive, and Democratic. I do think Katy Perry is Gamma. Haven't researched Wittgenstein.

    If this is seriously how you type people then it is no surprise that duality doesn't make sense to you. Dual is about complementary functions, it has very little to do with these Reinin dichotomies.

  24. #24
    Heart Chamber Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    IEE 3w4
    Posts
    7,568
    Mentioned
    594 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sometimes, matching up is not the problem. Noticing is.

  25. #25
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    2,549
    Mentioned
    377 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    But even after noticing, matching up can still be a problem.

    A lot of it depends on knowing what you really want, as opposed to what you think you want, or what you've been told you want, or what you think you should want.

    If you add in the very real presence of deal-breakers, which you may or may not be aware of at the time of the deal, it is a miracle that any couple gets together for the long term.

    In my own case, I was first attracted (in my early teens) to women who looked like my mother when I was very small. My mother had relatively short black hair, was thin, and looked like the school teacher that she was. This is also a really good description of my first real love and GF, an LSI. She wanted to marry, but I knew that something was off, so she found someone else.

    Next, when I realized that I was going to have to go out into the world and survive, I was attracted to a woman with the same personality type as my father, but who was much, much better. This woman I did marry (and divorced), although she was a Supervisor, not a Dual. I think marrying a parent is very, very common. It can probably work if your relationship with your parent isn't too bad, if you still need to work through some things, and if you are willing to live with and accept what you might find to be the same faults in your partner that your parent had.

    In high school, I met a male ESI-Se dual who also shared my same life goals (to become an Astronomer). Up to my present point in my life, this has been the gold standard of relationships for me. It really brought home the meaning of the statement, "There is a difference between a person who wants you and a person who will do anything to keep you." He was taller than me and thin and was the son of a banker and was incredibly dorky. He had a wry sense of humor that was kind of like a delayed time bomb and made you think. I loved that guy. (He married an ILI.)

    In college, I met another male ESI-Se who is interested in Astronomy, but something is off. We are good friends, but not great friends. I'm not sure what the difference is, but I can clearly see that simply finding a dual, even when that dual shares some of your life's interests, does not guarantee that the two of you will be a good match.

  26. #26
    Heart Chamber Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    IEE 3w4
    Posts
    7,568
    Mentioned
    594 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    But even after noticing, matching up can still be a problem.

    A lot of it depends on knowing what you really want, as opposed to what you think you want, or what you've been told you want, or what you think you should want.
    Ohh... we differ a lot here. I firmly believe that it's more about knowing what you need. What you want is exactly what causes issues in everything you elaborated in the other part. And actually, by marrying one's parental clone, one does go after needs and not wants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    If you add in the very real presence of deal-breakers, which you may or may not be aware of at the time of the deal, it is a miracle that any couple gets together for the long term.

    In my own case, I was first attracted (in my early teens) to women who looked like my mother when I was very small. My mother had relatively short black hair, was thin, and looked like the school teacher that she was. This is also a really good description of my first real love and GF, an LSI. She wanted to marry, but I knew that something was off, so she found someone else.

    Next, when I realized that I was going to have to go out into the world and survive, I was attracted to a woman with the same personality type as my father, but who was much, much better. This woman I did marry (and divorced), although she was a Supervisor, not a Dual. I think marrying a parent is very, very common. It can probably work if your relationship with your parent isn't too bad, if you still need to work through some things, and if you are willing to live with and accept what you might find to be the same faults in your partner that your parent had.

    In high school, I met a male ESI-Se dual who also shared my same life goals (to become an Astronomer). Up to my present point in my life, this has been the gold standard of relationships for me. It really brought home the meaning of the statement, "There is a difference between a person who wants you and a person who will do anything to keep you." He was taller than me and thin and was the son of a banker and was incredibly dorky. He had a wry sense of humor that was kind of like a delayed time bomb and made you think. I loved that guy. (He married an ILI.)

    In college, I met another male ESI-Se who is interested in Astronomy, but something is off. We are good friends, but not great friends. I'm not sure what the difference is, but I can clearly see that simply finding a dual, even when that dual shares some of your life's interests, does not guarantee that the two of you will be a good match.
    Last paragraph: subscribed! Esp. since duals are from different social spheres club-wise. You as a logical type first need to reach out in the ethical realm so there's something to bridge, that goes for any dual dyad. Also, when there are more complex problems, dualization is kind of hard in the first place

  27. #27
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    If this is seriously how you type people then it is no surprise that duality doesn't make sense to you. Dual is about complementary functions, it has very little to do with these Reinin dichotomies.
    It wasn't that I was trying to approach typing through the Reinin dichotomies. I was trying to type through the functions/quadras, essentially those which match up with me in terms of what I like/dislike subconsciously. However, I noticed that what I was calling certain functions subconsciously (e.g., 'Fe') fit different Reinin dichotomies than what they are supposed to! That was what I was showing above. It made me wonder if there is something wrong with my typing system... That was the motivation for posting those 'flaws.' (Hope that helps clarify...)
    LII

  28. #28
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    An IEE is simply someone with 1D logic and an ethical type.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Huh?
    I guess the better term would be ethical with *1D Ti.* They are 'IEE' subconsciously because I am really good at logic and so I really see their flaws - whether IEE or ESE. I don't like to see through, but because of the weak logic, their ethics simply doesn't move me. 2D Ti is okay! The better term for this is simply 'supervision' regardless of whether they are IEE, ESE, etc.

    I should also add that 'Se' is almost always someone who is verbally abrasive/argumentative - maybe even abusive (e.g., Clint Eastwood). Someone who is physically domineering but not verbally domineering (e.g., "World's Strongest Man") simply slips through the cracks. Someone who is simply 'loud' verbally but not abrasive is usually 'Fe.'
    Last edited by jason_m; 12-05-2016 at 02:41 AM.
    LII

  29. #29
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also:

    I now don't believe I'm Ni at all. I was confusing ESE with SEE and the ESFj celebrity post has helped confirm that. Even my avatar: some may assume that it holds some kind of abstract symbolism. It's a picture of a picture of a picture of a picture... going to infinity. I chose it as a mathematical symbol rather than something personal. Therefore, Ti > Ni (which I was confused about as well...).
    LII

  30. #30
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,633
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    It wasn't that I was trying to approach typing through the Reinin dichotomies. I was trying to type through the functions/quadras, essentially those which match up with me in terms of what I like/dislike subconsciously. However, I noticed that what I was calling certain functions subconsciously (e.g., 'Fe') fit different Reinin dichotomies than what they are supposed to! That was what I was showing above. It made me wonder if there is something wrong with my typing system... That was the motivation for posting those 'flaws.' (Hope that helps clarify...)
    Hmm ok.

  31. #31
    Fembot Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    IEI-1Ni
    Posts
    6,567
    Mentioned
    538 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Default

    I get the impression that what the OP describes as "internal traits" or differences boils down to Enneagram type and especially someone's personal psychology and background, rather than Socionics type.

    Having typed several people by now, also those of the same types, I have realized that even though two people can have the same Socionics and Enneagram type profiles, they are still unique and different in specific ways. Mostly related to their background: their family history, ethnicity, culture/society, education, IQ level, values, religion (or lack thereof), political orientation, sexual orientation, ... the list goes on. Additionally, the Big 5 can describe a few more of those internal differences amongst people of the same type(s). Some people are more neurotic, others more open to experience etc., even within the same Sociotype.

    Considering all of those non-Socionics related aspects, it is no wonder that not every Dual will be a "match" for you in a romantic or even just platonic sense. Surely, from all types you can encounter, same Quadra people will mostly be a "match" for you no matter their background. Even so, certain clashing aspects could make you feel like they would not be such a good match for you after all, while people from other Quadras who meet more of your background "ideals" or commonalities will appear to be better matches.

    Personally, I have arrived at the conclusion that I am unlikely going to end up with an SLE. I am not throwing out the possibility entirely, but I find it very unlikely. Why? Mostly related to Enneagram differences. I have my own theory regarding which Enneagram matches will be more "natural", based on the fact people gravitate towards and stay with others who are more similar to them (on an "internal level", as you said). In Enneagram terms, people who share one type in your tritype will usually feel more "similar" and hence familiar to you – they come from the same place "internally", have matching fears, desires, ideals, and so forth. In my case, that would be people who have either 4 and/or 5, 9 in their tritype. As far as I know, SLEs do not have either of those Enneagram types in their tritype. I could be wrong, but this has been my impression. Another observation of mine has been, all long-term married couples sharing one Enneagram type in their tritype, so that is why I find this issue important. Again, I could be wrong, and who knows, maybe I still end up with an SLE. (And by "ending up", I mean 20+ years.) But again, I do find it very unlikely. It is not like I am never attracted to SLEs – I find they are attractive on a general level, interesting, and I can easily see and understand where they are coming from. But at the same time, there seems to be a gap – and I assign that to the Enneagram difference (apart from any non-typology related aspects). I've been much more infatuated and attracted to people who weren't my Dual, and they all shared at least one of my Enneagram types in their tritype. (I should add that they also fit my Imago, and that is another huge factor that determines who "matches up" with whom.) Also, most people are primarily attracted to either someone of the same instinctual flow as them, or someone who shares the same blindspot.

    On another personal note, I find political orientation quite important in a romantic partner. I have come across several Beta STs who were all the opposite of me politically. I still liked them as people, but I could never be with someone who was the opposite from me when it came to political views. Political orientation matters more to me than IQ level, actually. Perhaps this is just me being Social instinct first. A lot of people who have the Social instinct first or second care about someone's political stance. It is not like I want the person to be actively engaged or interested in politics. They couldn't care less (many SX/SP people are that way), but as long as our outlook is compatible and the same, I am fine.

    When it comes to highly intelligent Alpha NTs and dating, I have noticed they mostly struggle with IQ differences. Most people match up with those who share a similar IQ level, or the guy has a slightly higher IQ level than the woman. Many (if not most) "Genius level" individuals happen to be Alpha NT, in my experience. That results in them not dating anyone for a while, or eventually dating someone from their field who is a fellow Alpha NT or at least close to their own IQ level. Gamma NTs may face a similar issue, though somehow it is not such a "big deal" for them compared to the Alpha NTs – possibly because they don't actually value . Gammas do care about intelligence in a particular way (having NTs in their Quadra, I am assuming), but they seem more comfortable with one person (usually the NT) being "Genius level" and the other not so, whereas "Genius level" Alpha NTs tend to find someone's lower IQ somewhat grating or insufferable over time. That could be why many of them won't end up with an Alpha SF Dual (or date them for a while, but eventually yearn for someone to have intellectual conversations with on the same level as them). The most common NT-SF Dual pairing is SEE-ILI, in my experience. And for some reason, the male SEE - female ILI pairing seems more common despite the stereotypes. It is one of my favourite Dual pairings, to be honest. It seems so unusual but oh so right.

    Anyway, to summarize, whether you "match up" with your Dual or not depends on: Compatible Background, Shared Enneagram (aspects, see Tritype and Instinctual Stacking), Mutual Attraction (Imago), Exposure (meaning you actually meet). Here you can read more about that.
    Last edited by Olimpia; 12-05-2016 at 03:06 PM.
    4w5-9w1-5w6 So/Sx

    My typing blog [x]
    My theory blog [x]
    My tumblr blog [x]
    My film blog [x]
    Discord [x]


  32. #32
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    459
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you are doing correct socionics, it won't take long to notice a dual that you click with (it could be someone that you already know).

  33. #33
    Heart Chamber Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    IEE 3w4
    Posts
    7,568
    Mentioned
    594 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    If you are doing correct socionics, it won't take long to notice a dual that you click with (it could be someone that you already know).


    From an ST standpoint, obv no problem. When you're an oblivious NF type whose theory exists only in their wild imagination, that's another discussion I agree that it could be someone you know; the mere-presence effect always contributes when getting to know each other. People's subconscious liking increases when they are familiar.

  34. #34
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,288
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All this dual talk makes me want to meet one. Where are you? Are you out there?
    "Traffic lights and loneliness. Paper cans and tape cassettes. When the world feels like this. Static shocks and bitterness."

  35. #35
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I've figured out why it is that I doubt my type:

    I essentially struggle with socionics LII descriptions: "I know I have strong 'Ti', but why doesn't it match socionics INTj descriptions at all?" I know the answer: in MBTI, I am INTP. I fit a lot of the descriptions almost perfectly. E.g.: http://personalitypage.com/html/INTP.html. However, socionics LII descriptions don't match the INTP descriptions at all. Why? Here is the difference between MBTI INTJ and INTP:

    INTJ: Precise, self-confident, reasoning is more practical, more structured/organized, more practical about logic/career.

    INTP: Less precise, plagued by self-doubt, reasoning is more theoretical, not organized, more innovative about ideas/career.

    If you look at these two descriptions, INTJs are judging types, but they sound more NiTe (or TeNi) than TiNe, while INTPs are the exact opposite. Therefore, in socionics, INTJs match up with LII descriptions because they are structured, organized rational types, but INTPs might match up better functionally, because they are more realistically TiNe. Therefore, in my case, I am 'LII' because I am TiNe - not because I'm structured and organized. The discrepancy then comes from the descriptions - as I said, LII descriptions seem INTJ, but not really TiNe to me. Therefore, because functions are probably more important than descriptions, I am most likely LII, but I simply don't fit most of the descriptions. That might then explain the confusion I have been having. I hope that helps...
    I have my answer: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1168513
    LII

  36. #36
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've analyzed it further, and this is the exact problem:

    I do indeed have a dual - but they're almost always men! You have Matthew Mcconaughey, Chris Rock, and even comedian Dennis Miller could all be dual... In other words, I like someone funny, outgoing, and lively. The problem is that the women who are this way are always impatient - maybe even with a real negative edge (e.g., Katy Perry). That makes the typical 'ESE' woman something like moth-and-the-flame for me. Now, because of this, people would suggest SEIs. With SEIs, you have two kinds: 1) The really mellow, calm, mildly emotional variety (e.g., Rene Russo) and 2) the friendly, down-to-earth type, that's quite friendly and enthusiastic (e.g., John Candy or Lydia Bastianich). Here's the problem: the first type is bascially like humanist to me; I pick up shades of business and identical relations - I don't really get dual or activation there! The second type is a lot closer to dual, but once again, they are always men! The only women I've found who are of that type are elderly! You also have LSEs, but I don't really like or understand business logic, and then the warm, feeling type of ESE - e.g., "Penny" from The Big Band Theory - but I don't really get that function either. And that, in a nutshell, is my problem... I don't know if anyone matches up and therefore who to go with. I therefore want out of this theory, but once you've studied it, there's no way out - unless you find something better: but then, what is there that's better than this out there? Do you see what I mean? I simply don't know what to do... My best bet is moth-and-the-flame, but how is that going to work?
    LII

  37. #37
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,633
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @jason_m maybe you should just find someone you like and stop worrying about what type they are?

Posting Permissions

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