Duality, Conflict, and Pain

[Aramas]

Assuming that duals and conflictors both have issues with each other that need to be worked through due to their different strengths, duals and conflictors will both cause each other pain. What is the difference between pain inflicted by a dual and pain that comes from a conflictor? How does the pain experienced in duality, rather than cause destruction of the psyche, result in an increase in psychological health? What is it about the pain invoked by a conflictor that destroys?

Just some questions to consider and to promote discussion.

[Sol]

What is the difference between pain inflicted by a dual and pain that comes from a conflictor?

dual gives you lesser problems
duals are easier to change/adopt to each other as have same values (similar life's perception)
dual gives you some of good, which conflictors do not or much lesser

in close relations conflictors give problems which duals do not like:
- exhaust your psyche, you tire from them (as you need to tune to alien values) [duals energise you]
- induce depressive and anxiety symptoms [duals arise your self-assurance, self-esteem and optimism]
- give lesser of the support you need, may do not respect and be irritated by your demands in it (other values) [duals perceive you more like a loved child in your weak regions, but not capricious]
- may increase neurotic disorders [duals may help to remove them]
- may annoy by redundant expression of ego functions, by the stubborn reduction of the attention to your ego regions [duals much more express your valued versions of the functions instead of other ones]
- different approach to the planing: other J/P [duals have it the same]

Except J/P the other mb harder with superego, than conflictors. But superego have the same E/I what is not good (extraverts overstimulate each other, introverts understimulate). Jung thought as the weakest function suggestive one, not 4th.

> How does the pain experienced in duality, rather than cause destruction of the psyche

From dual you get lesser of negative on your weak functions. Dual lesser expresses direct activity on your weak nonvalued regions and cares about you in weak valued in a way you accept ok. Duals treat each other like kids in weak regions, being like good parrents/friends for each other.

> result in an increase in psychological health?

the problem of conflictors - they press your weak nonvalued regions - this disturbes your normal psyche activity, supresses the one natural for you.
duals stimulate normal psyche functioning - it's like immunity stimulation for your psyche - you feel more energy and in the needed form to heal and protect yourself.
also duals teach you by own skills with dealing in weak reagions and help you there themselves

> Just some questions to consider and to promote discussion.

On today it's rather abstractly, shortly and speculatively described which psyche problems may create different IR, how they help, why it's so.
Some info about how IR work mb in Jung's followers texts about cases of healing in psychotherapy with the types usage. They should be working mostly with the suggestive region inner conflicts. To do what duals may do naturally.
Socionics practice was centered on romances, jobs and alike. Not on the details about psyche issues.

[niffer]

I don’t think conflicters are capable of destroying one another really, only irritating one another’s vulnerable function and general irritation due to misaligned values and being offputting to one another over time. Rather than destruction, I think it results in ‘neurosis’ as is claimed due to conflicting understanding related to the communication/interpretation of information, which is the foundation of a relationship really.

It should be a lot easier for duals to destroy one another, because they can become very reliant on each other over time and know what one another holds dear. In duality descriptions it’s said that just “one look” from a dual in a close relationship can communicate tons and duals can keep each other in line that way.

[Bertrand]

it depends on what you mean by destroy someone, lots of people are overcome with neurosis whereas an emotional episode resulting from being burned by a dual may be only temporary. both can destroy you one is slow the other is fast. destruction is a result which can flow from either. degree of potential harm is high between both, but probability of harm should be lower between duals, otherwise there's no real distinction between the two. any two TIM are capable of instantly physically destroying one another

[Muddy]

Co-existing peacefully with a conflictor isn't impossible, but is less satisfying then being with a dual even in turbulent circumstances. To get along with a conflicter you need to consciously refrain and suppress yourself from being the way you are or would like to be, whereas adjusting to a dual feels more like an act liberation and becoming your trueself rather then changing yourself for just the sake of peace.

[niffer]

Co-existing with a conflictor is less satisfying than being alone.

[domr]

Look at the model.

1) Rationallity

Duals both favor the same rationality, either perception or judgement, so they are on the same page about WHEN to observe and WHEN to judge. With conflict you are on the opposite. One wants to decide, the other wants to keep seeing. This makes it difficult to even talk.

2) Conscious vs. Unconscious Blocks

Duals and conflictors are flipped along the conscious axis. Dual's ego is conflictor's id and dual's super-id is the conflictor's super-id. This makes flights between duals a fight between conscious and unconscious functions while a fight between conflictor's a fight between conscious and conscious, and technically unconscious and unconscious functions. The former is preferable to the latter.

3) Valued vs Non-valued Functions.

You value your dual's ego block while you do not value your conflictor's ego block.

[Hermit Soul]

Assuming that duals and conflictors both have issues with each other that need to be worked through due to their different strengths, duals and conflictors will both cause each other pain. What is the difference between pain inflicted by a dual and pain that comes from a conflictor? How does the pain experienced in duality, rather than cause destruction of the psyche, result in an increase in psychological health? What is it about the pain invoked by a conflictor that destroys?

Just some questions to consider and to promote discussion.

I would say that a dual is able to cause me more pain as compared to my conflictor.

I'm close friends with my dual, and I'm also secretly in love with him. We have always been very close, but lately my dual got depressed and has been expressing suicidal thoughts, and his depression has caused him to withdraw from people and his withdrawal has in turn affected our friendship, causing us to drift apart. This distance in our friendship is causing me to sink into major depression, I've been feeling really down all the time and I've been having crying spells multiple times a day and having no energy and no mood to do anything. I keep worrying about my dual all the time, and I also keep getting depressed over how we have drifted apart. I feel like I'm going through a break-up now. Yes, this is how it feels like when you drift apart from your dual. It actually feels a lot like a relationship breakup, and I have to go through the entire grieving process: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.

A conflictor wouldn't be able to affect my emotions on such a deep level. I can see my conflictor as someone who annoy me on a consistent basis, but they wouldn't be able to make me go into grieving mode the way my dual is able to.

[Bertrand]

its true if your dual dies or something it probably feels worse than your conflictor

[Aramas]

it depends on what you mean by destroy someone, lots of people are overcome with neurosis whereas an emotional episode resulting from being burned by a dual may be only temporary. both can destroy you one is slow the other is fast. destruction is a result which can flow from either. degree of potential harm is high between both, but probability of harm should be lower between duals, otherwise there's no real distinction between the two. any two TIM are capable of instantly physically destroying one another

Which is slow and which is fast?

[domr]

Conflictor forces you to prioritize functions that you do not value. In addition they force the J/P conflict to the conscious portion of the psyche.
Dual forces you to prioritize functions that you do value. In addition they keep the J/P conflict between conscious and subconscious.

This is why dual is ultimately constructive while conflict is almost always destructive.

[Guillaine]

i agree the pain from duals is stronger in the sense of pure pain, you understand it, it pierces you when they disappoint you, judge you or you lose them. You feel very alive from it, very awake, very vulnerable, very you. Pain from conflictor is more confused, you can't fathom it, it's just you keep trying to hit a nail and end up hitting your thumb every time, almost. It creates more self-doubt, self-hatred perhaps.

[Bertrand]

Which is slow and which is fast?

fundamentally we're talking about information metabolism, and information from the dual goes down smoother so to speak, so its "faster" in that sense, whereas information from conflictors I think sits in the subconscious and accumulates which is what gives rise to a lot of neurosis. a lot of psychotherapy is like a sewage system to clear this stuff out

[Aramas]

fundamentally we're talking about information metabolism, and information from the dual goes down smoother so to speak, so its "faster" in that sense, whereas information from conflictors I think sits in the subconscious and accumulates which is what gives rise to a lot of neurosis. a lot of psychotherapy is like a sewage system to clear this stuff out

I'm doubtful about the benefits of traditional psychotherapy. The best therapy I've had is stuff I've looked up online or relationships I've had with friends. I've been to several therapists, and every time, it was quite useless in comparison -- if not actually damaging.

That said, what you say about how information metabolizes between duals and conflictors seems like it makes sense.

[domr]

That said, what you say about how information metabolizes between duals and conflictors seems like it makes sense.

Based on which part of Modal A? I don't see anything about information accumulating in the subconscious in the model.

[Bertrand]

a lot of it is common sense, its like what is PTSD except for undigested experience, i.e.: information, trying to run itself through the hopper again to no effect. its because the valued channels can't handle it adequately, perhaps no channels can, depending on the severity, but its just a case to demonstrate the point in a more universal way, there is all sorts of experience that jams people up, if you deny that, why even have a theory of personality to begin with, because if there's no consequence to the mismatch of this kind, which is essentially disjunction prolonged over time, the entire project loses its meaning

[domr]

a lot of it is common sense

Hypotheses (Ne) without any link to the model to show how they were derived (Ti) or examples in real life (Si) are just reckless speculations.
I've stopped responding to most of your posts because all you do is reckless Ne speculation.

[Bertrand]

you could say the same thing about model A (and analytic psychology in general) to begin with, which is precisely what singu does. it sounds like he's just worked out that premise a bit further than you

also i appreciate you not responding to me because you talk like a simultaneously smug yet ignorant asshole and I find it super annoying

[domr]

you could say the same thing about model A (and analytic psychology in general) to begin with, which is precisely what singu does. it sounds like he's just worked out that premise a bit further than you

also i appreciate you not responding to me because you talk like an asshole and I find it super annoying

That's exactly what I did.

Which is why I stripped Socionics to the bare bones. Everything that I said was self-evidence, i.e unprovable, exists because it adds a lot of depth to the model, e.g. valued functions create Quadras.

if you are gonna make up stuff without any way to prove it then it has to be really strong. Making up stuff as a deus ex explicandum is the entire reason socionics got bloated to begin with.

[Bertrand]

alright looking forward to the end product as always, right now you're just living in the future working backward from your assumed success, which adds a kind of irony to the words "speculation" in your mouth

[Singu]

you could say the same thing about model A (and analytic psychology in general) to begin with, which is precisely what singu does. it sounds like he's just worked out that premise a bit further than you

Er no, that's exactly what I'm not doing. I've been saying that Socionics is an inductivist system, which means that it just collects more and more observations. It hardly has any hypotheses.

But yes, Bertrand does say a lot of nonsense.

[Bertrand]

yeah yeah you launder it through these other notions ("hypothesis" v "observation" is a distinction without a difference when its really all just essentially "too speculative" to found knowledge, because of how you go on to set the requirements constituting knowledge) but its essentially the same claim, you guys are two peas in a pod the only difference being domr thinks he can remake socionics to fix what singu says we're better off just tossing. i really think the only difference is Singu probably went through that exact phase already. anyway both of you have a weird relationship to time and how you think and its that relationship that creates all this weird from my point of view behavior. all the Fe on top is just like an amplifier calling attention to the underlying weirdness

[domr]

Er no, that's exactly what I'm not doing. I've been saying that Socionics is an inductivist system, which means that it just collects more and more observations. It hardly has any hypotheses.

But yes, Bertrand does say a lot of nonsense.

Try deducing Model A and see how many definitions you need and why you need them.

domr thinks he can remake socionics to fix what singu says we're better off just tossing.

The genesis of this theory is that people need to gather information and make decisions. There are two ways to gather info, using biological sensors or making it up and people can make decisions in 2 different ways, logic and ethics. This is very intuitive, very logical, and powerful. Why toss this out? It's brilliantly simple.

[Bertrand]

Im sure Singu will tell you, and if your system doesn't catch on (which seems like a longshot), suddenly perhaps you'll see the truth to his perspective or whatever. it will be interesting to see how this plays out. highest odds are on you just realizing this might actually happen and just up and disappear forever, at which point it wasn't so much that socionics is wrong and that singu is right, its that you have better things to do, or that's what you'll tell yourself. and then we get to see if your theory on stuff accumulating in the subconscious is true, because every time you start to wonder about socionics, socionics reasserts the entire circle you try to deny, of which this conversation is just a microcosm. well anyway, cya

[Singu]

Try deducing Model A and see how many definitions you need and why you need them.

Well let's say that one of the hypothesis is "There are 16 types of people in the world". Is this true? So we'll ask the question, "Are there 16 types of people in this world"? This question is nonsensical, because the answer is obviously, yes, there are 16 types of people in this world. But it doesn't necessarily mean that there are only 16, there could be 17, 18, 19 or 5 million types of people.

So that's the weakness of an inductivist system.

[domr]

Well let's say that one of the hypothesis is "There are 16 types of people in the world". Is this true? So we'll ask the question, "Are there 16 types of people in this world"? This question is nonsensical, because the answer is obviously, yes, there are 16 types of people in this world. But it doesn't necessarily mean that there are only 16, there could be 17, 18, 19 or 5 million types of people.

So that's the weakness of an inductivist system.

Do you have experience in statistics?

1. The entire point of a model is to see the forest instead of the trees. If you want to see all the types then you can already do that by looking at the reality BUT YOU LOSE INSIGHTS with that approach. A model trades defintion for insights, trades some of the trees for the forest.

2. You want the fewest possible groups in a model. Less groups means easier generalizations. I would say 16 types is the sweet spot in this theory. 4 Quadras or Clubs loses too much information. 32 (sub)types, demonstrative vs creative, adds information but it's far lower than the amount of info gained when we went from 4-16.

factor_analysis_job_applicants_scree_plot.png

Iris_dendrogram.png

3. This model won't tell you everything about the psyche and it doesn't need too. That's why so many people stack Socionics with Enneagram because both models show different aspects to personality.

[Singu]

Do you have experience in statistics?

1. The entire point of a model is to see the forest instead of the trees. If you want to see all the types then you can already do that by looking at the reality BUT YOU LOSE INSIGHTS with that approach. A model trades defintion for insights, trades some of the trees for the forest.

A model is about interpreting or explaining reality. Statistics, just like Socionics, is just data to be analyzed.

So asking "how many types of people are there in the world?" is pretty absurd, because that depends on how we would define a type as, and why. So the question that we're really asking is, "how can we understand people? And would separating people into types help us get closer to our goal of understanding people?". How we would define a type would depend entirely on our goal of understanding people.

2. You want the fewest possible groups in a model. Less groups means easier generalizations. I would say 16 types is the sweet spot in this theory. 4 Quadras or Clubs loses too much information. 32 (sub)types, demonstrative vs creative, adds information but it's far lower than the amount of info gained when we went from 4-16.

Well you wouldn't want something so general and broad that it fits into everything, which means that it fits into nothing. You'd want something with a rationale behind it, and why that group is appropriate for explaining what you're supposed to be explaining. Why should this number 16 be the best number for being able to understand people? It really depends.

[Rebelondeck]

A dual can inflict pain to the same intensity as any other type, more when they know you. Being a dual doesn't imply harmony or agreement. A relation of conflict doesn't imply conflict; it identifies possible divergences in communication, direction and approach but this can all be mitigated.

a.k.a. I/O

[Guillaine]

I think it depends (especially for the conflictor relationship) on the distance and emotional health. Assuming it's close distance and you work together or spends several hours together everyday, or are family and live together and are of average emotional health the misunderstandings will cause hurt feelings. I think particularly close it the mother-child experience for both where the power dynamics also come into it, in which case a child thinks it's mother is perfect and will blame themselves for those misunderstandings, inability to connect. Conflictors more distant like friends, aunts etc not in immediate contact everyday don't cause much pain only some stumbling and misunderstanding.
I find duals can effect me much more from a much further distance, for good and bad. Only being friends there are implicit understandings just from hardly speaking and the pain that can come (as well as joy) is in my opinion stronger than what other types can at and equal distance.

[Aramas]

A dual can inflict pain to the same intensity as any other type, more when they know you. Being a dual doesn't imply harmony or agreement. A relation of conflict doesn't imply conflict; it identifies possible divergences in communication, direction and approach but this can all be mitigated.

a.k.a. I/O

If a relation of conflict doesn't imply conflict then why call it conflict?

[Bertrand]

i think he's implying but leaving out that there's a distinction between conflict on the level of understanding and physical or actual conflict, one does not inevitably cause the other, in other words, one can get a handle on miscommunications. but it does sort of beg the question, because it further implies that there's conflict arising out of something other than miscommunication, and you might say that if we all had perfect mutual understanding there would be no conflict, but what he's saying is that even with perfect understanding there would nevertheless be conflict, otherwise the two simply are identical (conflict = conflict) simply distributed differently in time. this is an interesting implication because I can see it possibly being both ways, but I think we will never really know what is actually the case because we will likely never perfect communication and understanding well enough to find out whether or not that resolves all actual conflict. in other words, this is precisely what philosophers debate, whether all evil is fundamentally a form of ignorance or whether it exists in a positive capacity despite knowing better. i.e.: is their evil that knows itself to be evil, or is all evil a product of well intentioned misunderstandings and miscommunications. I think this is itself a psychological perspective, meaning what you think is where you personally are conservative, some people don't risk or manipulate some information and others do. in other words, if you're conservative on ethics the position is essentially "always do the right thing" and spend all energy on figuring out the logical situation and the "real" facts, this would be like sensing/logic types.

another way to look at is physical conflict is itself not an ethical thing, rather its simply a form of ethically neutral communication in of itself, thus conflict on the level of understanding and physical conflict are distinguishable simply by their mode of instantiation namely physical v abstract. in that sense they are distinguishable because despite the fact they one may lead to the other via escalation, it does not imply anything "went wrong" or that there was any kind of moral stake at all in play, thus there is no reason to think that distinguishing them presents a moral problem by reverse implication that doing so negates the proposition that evil is a product of misunderstanding. its not a product of misunderstanding because violence as a product of misunderstanding is not in fact evil, its just an extended form of communication difficulties resolving themselves. this is probably the more Fi polr position

anyway there's a lot going on here

[Aramas]

i think he's implying but leaving out that there's a distinction between conflict on the level of understanding and physical or actual conflict, one does not inevitably cause the other, in other words, one can get a handle on miscommunications. but it does sort of beg the question, because it further implies that there's conflict arising out of something other than miscommunication, and you might say that if we all had perfect mutual understanding there would be no conflict, but what he's saying is that even with perfect understanding there would nevertheless be conflict, otherwise the two simply are identical (conflict = conflict) simply distributed differently in time. this is an interesting implication because I can see it possibly being both ways, but I think we will never really know what is actually the case because we will likely never perfect communication and understanding well enough to find out whether or not that resolves all actual conflict. in other words, this is precisely what philosophers debate, whether all evil is fundamentally a form of ignorance or whether it exists in a positive capacity despite knowing better. i.e.: is their evil that knows itself to be evil, or is all evil a product of well intentioned misunderstandings and miscommunications. I think this is itself a psychological perspective, meaning what you think is where you personally are conservative, some people don't risk or manipulate some information and others do. in other words, if you're conservative on ethics the position is essentially "always do the right thing" and spend all energy on figuring out the logical situation and the "real" facts, this would be like sensing/logic types.

another way to look at is physical conflict is itself not an ethical thing, rather its simply a form of ethically neutral communication in of itself, thus conflict on the level of understanding and physical conflict are distinguishable simply by their mode of instantiation namely physical v abstract. in that sense they are distinguishable because despite the fact they one may lead to the other via escalation, it does not imply anything "went wrong" or that there was any kind of moral stake at all in play, thus there is no reason to think that distinguishing them presents a moral problem by reverse implication that doing so negates the proposition that evil is a product of misunderstanding. its not a product of misunderstanding because violence as a product of misunderstanding is not in fact evil, its just an extended form of communication difficulties resolving themselves. this is probably the more Fi polr position

anyway there's a lot going on here

My personal belief is that people mostly don't have conflict due to miscommunication and ignorance; they have it usually due to mutually exclusive and contrary goals. I think it's funny how people often characterize conflict resolution/compromise as the "a misunderstanding" when it blatantly was not. The only reason compromise takes place in a lot of situations is that one party cannot harm the other without incurring significant damage itself. A common term is "mutually assured destruction."

When I think of Socionics conflict, I think of it less as miscommunication and more as a conflict of goals. Each quadra (and dyad) is trying to create an environment where its denizens can thrive. Those environments are contrary to each other, so there's conflict. I think Aushra had the opinion that all the quadras could get along in the overall machinery of society by having a division of labor. But that's not how it works imo. The people in each quadra want to be involved in all the different aspects of the process of creation and maintenance; they think their way is best.

[Bertrand]

yeah I think thats true. I think conflict is more or less a product of there needing to be a differentiation to experience for it to have any meaning, otherwise it all recedes back into unconsciousness, so however you slice it: chaos/order pain/pleasure clarity/confusion love/hate, etc consciousness is experiencing these things so as soon as you do away with them you do away with being, so you can think of conflict in this sense as an inevitable consequence of being itself. in my mind this doesn't erase the distinction between better/worse, or the value in striving, but you're right the quadras provide another layer of distinction that as a byproduct produce "conflict" we which often call "evil" but its just another word for adverse values and goals, and this adversity occurs across every imaginable strata, so for the people who want the same ends they fight over the means, for the people who agree on proper means nevertheless disagree on what the end should be. there's always the play of opposites and the counter position; and its hard for me to see how it could be otherwise without also ending life or consciousness itself. you might even say the anti natalist or pro eradication of humanity position is the opposing pole to the position that life itself, with its difficulties, is worth living

[domr]

A model is about interpreting or explaining reality. Statistics, just like Socionics, is just data to be analyzed.

So asking "how many types of people are there in the world?" is pretty absurd, because that depends on how we would define a type as, and why. So the question that we're really asking is, "how can we understand people? And would separating people into types help us get closer to our goal of understanding people?". How we would define a type would depend entirely on our goal of understanding people.



Well you wouldn't want something so general and broad that it fits into everything, which means that it fits into nothing. You'd want something with a rationale behind it, and why that group is appropriate for explaining what you're supposed to be explaining. Why should this number 16 be the best number for being able to understand people? It really depends.

You are just as bad as Bertrand.

With Bertrand it's dumbass NeTi coming up with random bullshit assumptions to solve logical problems.
With you it's dumbass TiNe coming up with random excuses to not solve logical problems.

[Sol]

You are just as bad as Bertrand.

[Aramas]

yeah I think thats true. I think conflict is more or less a product of there needing to be a differentiation to experience for it to have any meaning, otherwise it all recedes back into unconsciousness, so however you slice it: chaos/order pain/pleasure clarity/confusion love/hate, etc consciousness is experiencing these things so as soon as you do away with them you do away with being, so you can think of conflict in this sense as an inevitable consequence of being itself. in my mind this doesn't erase the distinction between better/worse, or the value in striving, but you're right the quadras provide another layer of distinction that as a byproduct produce "conflict" we which often call "evil" but its just another word for adverse values and goals, and this adversity occurs across every imaginable strata, so for the people who want the same ends they fight over the means, for the people who agree on proper means nevertheless disagree on what the end should be. there's always the play of opposites and the counter position; and its hard for me to see how it could be otherwise without also ending life or consciousness itself. you might even say the anti natalist or pro eradication of humanity position is the opposing pole to the position that life itself, with its difficulties, is worth living

Yeah. Differentiation is required for experience. Everything ultimately descends from some unmanifest monad. From there comes dyadic being and the rest of reality follows from that. Experience without distinction can't be experienced. All that philosophical jazz.

[Singu]

With Bertrand it's dumbass NeTi coming up with random bullshit assumptions to solve logical problems.
With you it's dumbass TiNe coming up with random excuses to not solve logical problems.

Erm, I'm pretty sure the problem is "how can we understand people?". You're just trying to solve a logical problem for the sake of solving logical problems.

[Rebelondeck]

If a relation of conflict doesn't imply conflict then why call it conflict?

They had to label it something and divergence is a possible source of conflict but it's not a fistfight. Socionics uses the words intuitive, ethical, etc. because it needed classification labels; the problem is that the words have their own dictionary meanings that don't quite correlate with what the labels are representing...............

a.k.a. I/O

[falsehope]

My parents tried to mitigate conflict for 40 years with no success. It's very difficult to do so and I am failing to do it with ESIs because of many reasons. For example, my mother is feeling type and she struggles with logical actions to mitigate conflict and gets emotional too much when she's supposed to calm down and ignore. My father on the other hand is butthurt every time and needs to argue even he knows this will bring problems (high Se). As with me and ESIs, after some time it always ends up in massive, non-stoppable conflict mainly because ESI is too emotional and listens more to emotions and feelings then to logical thinking. At some point, there is no way to mitigate anything, the longer it lasts the worse it is and it doesn't get better.

With duals it is entirely different. Over time it gets better. There might be some issues at the beginning but not no-goers.

[Saoirse]

I don't get that much pain from conflictors/SLE. For healthy ones, I can admire them from afar, though we don't usually end up being close friends. I'm not sure what they're thinking, but I don't approach them much since I think they find me boring or uncool. For unhealthy ones, sometimes I get aggravated if we have to interact for some reason, and they make it obvious that they're looking down on me, but overall, I just try to ignore them. I find them looking down on me stupid because we have different values, so I don't really care that I don't rank highly in their eyes. I think the healthier ones can recognize different people have different values, so they aren't as condescending. It's not too hard to resist the Se of unhealthy ones, since in those cases, I often just have a "screw you" reaction.

I've gotten a lot of pain from duals/LSE. It's just worse when you strongly trust and admire someone and they let you down (with SLEs, that deep trust just doesn't form in the first place since we're not close friends). It's hard to resist LSEs' Se since it's combined with valued Te. It used to make me think they're smart and always right, but I would only realize too late when they were using Se against me, not for me. This selfishness is subconscious for them, as they desperately want to believe they are good people (suggestive Fi). They didn't trust my authority on Fi and Ni matters like I trusted their authority on Te and Se matters. It was very insulting. I was always encouraging of them when they wanted to be reassured that their Fi is good, but they were always dismissive of my Te. It hurts more when it becomes apparent that an LSE thinks little of me than when an SLE thinks little of me, because I value things that are more similar to what LSE values.

Of course, it may just be because I interacted with less mature LSEs, but I don't think this is true. I was pretty close to three LSEs, and I think they are actually above average in maturity and mental health. Maybe the absolute most mature LSEs, at the very top of Maslow's hierarchy, would be great to interact with. But such people are rare in any type.

I'm probably not a super stereotypical EII, but out of all my EII friends, I definitely used to be the most gung ho about Te and LSEs, so if I've renounced them, there are probably some fundamental issues there. My other EII friends just never even found them that interesting in the first place. In practice, I have seen that people within a type can have different "favorite/admired" functions that are not really predicted by the core Socionics theory (maybe it's related to subtypes and enneagram stuff). For example, one of my EII friends really loves Ne, and another really loves Fe. Personally I really favor Ni, so LSEs' polr ended up turning me off them. Somehow my use of Ni might've been a bit too similar to how an Ni ego might use it (too overt and lacking the subtlety of a typical demonstrative function), so they couldn't stomach my help in that area. Anyway, though this thread's topic really resonates with me due to my personal experiences, I am not sure if other EIIs have felt or would feel the same dual trauma as I have since they actually often just don't naturally get that close to LSEs.