Levels of attraction

[chip]

From a general standpoint people differ in their personal tastes and satisfaction in terms of finding the right one. With the impression of discovering my perfect women I have glossed over the descriptions of relations and types only to be drawn in again to intensely examine and re-exame these same descriptions, as, I imagine, many here have done the same or similar on this forum. However socionics is not my only source for guidance. There is plenty of advisory and secret tips available on the internet to help single guys attract women. I consider myself rational and truthful and so, to my shame, I admit to having consulted astrology and numerology in that ancient search a man embarks on to find his other half. Socionics stands out from amongst the rest perhaps only for the very reason that they provide answers for free unlike cosmic capatilism and the secret guide to pick up chicks.

However, recently, I have had the unoriginal idea or thought stirring in my mind: how important is psychological compatibility when you consider all factors that constitute attraction?

Astrologers claim, we are who we are from birth, inwhich, the more precise our understanding of us entering the world and leaving the womb of our mothers reveals much of who we are and whom we are compatible with. In some respects the entirety of your life can be predicted based upon the astrology chart.

Science claims attraction is a natural phenomenon inwhich an interested individual performs mating rituals and secretes pheromones to 'convince' their potential mate of the worthiness of their sexual engagement. To further explain, attraction occurs on a genetic level bywhich one individual is attracted to another due to their genetic predisposition, that is to say, subconsciously we are seeking a more perfect bond to enhance our own health and survival by uniting with another individual who has immunity to all our own inherent weakness. To simplify, the science of sexual compatibility is equatable to reducing the world to minute and invisible but real and influential forces such as bacteria, viruses, germs, etc. From a scientific standpoint we literally breath each other in and subconsciously our bodies respond favourably or disfavourably in determining a genetic match suitable for sexual reproduction.

Convention claims there is rules of attraction and rules of dating that must be followed, in which, the violation of one or many of these rules calls into question the skill of the dater, and for those skilled at dating, they reep the benefits of enjoying a successful relationship. Futhermore, convention ideolizes sex to the point of unattainablity for many average people. For common people, beauty is a rarity as is deformity. Therefore without natural perfection people engage themselves in enhacing their attractiveness by means of artificiality with sometimes painfully devestating results, i.e. plastic surgery. Convention is the safest road by which many people venture.

Romantics claim true love is to allign ourselves with our own destiny inwhich we give our selves up, but not in wreakless haste, instead, we surrender ourselves to fate, entrusting that the good in us will inspire the good in others, inwhich, meeting our true love is like a spiritual relevation, like lost souls once again reunited. Romanticism is the most endearing and yet the least successful. More often than not, romance is scorned by convention due to the obvious failure and general inapplicability to society as a whole but the true romantic thrives on risk.

In my humble opinion I have represented numerous opinions sufficently into four basic points of view. I have undoubtedly failed due to the limit of my own imagination and intellect to fully grasp all that can be said and considered. However despite my own limitation I can thoughtfully consider is there a real primary factor that can resolve all points of view accounted for? We can love one with our hearts, one with our minds, one with our bodies and one with our souls but can we love one person to such an extent that we can not but love them with all of that makes us a person?

I ask myself: at what point does psychological compatibility begin to shape the decisions we take in choosing to be with someone? Does psychological attraction begin only after astrology has given us the go ahead? or does it begin once nature has almost mystically swayed our judgment in favour of this one person over another? or does it begin when we have earned proper standing as skilled in the art of seduction, committment, communication, charm, style, physique, wit, humour, dance, occupation and seemingly the ability to hide from our own vulnerability? (which, so happens to be, the real standard of convention) or lastly does psychological compatibility begin only after we can clarify the loftest of romantic ideals as we are compelled to admit "we are together because we are meant to be together"? To sum up: is psychological compatibility all that is needed or can we truly be with someone without psychological compatibility even though they are the perfect match according to astrology, science, convention and romance?

[Jarno]

Some things that I've read about duality, which might be interesting.

Duality is considered the only relationship of True Love.

Duality relationship is possible when 2 other criteria are also met:
- minimum physical attraction
- similar future plans

Duals under 30 have no problems adjusting to eachother.

Duals aren't attracted to eachother at their first meeting. The strong attraction start later.

Duality has a period of frustration, when partners begin to notice how the other interacts with other people.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

They've already studied why people are attracted to certain people and view them 'that way', and it's really none of those. Or more precise, it's a weird combination of all those aspects you mentioned!

People are romantically attracted to people who are have traits of both their mothers and fathers. Your pure mother or pure father is of course, very non-erotic to you and naturally gross. But somehow, in individuals that 'mix them together' you subconsciously think 'Daddy or mommy!' and you want to be cared for again. Only now, because of the mixed traits- it's also sexual and exciting AS WELL as comforting and secure. So you can't help but feel that this person feels like 'the one.'

Your parents were the super-ego hard hitters. They provided safety and security to you but discouraged your 'sexual excitement.' Somebody who you romance, feels safe and secure but they also encourage you to explore your sexual shadow side. (Which all parents and authority figures naturally and instinctively discourage.) It makes sense, doesn't it? You get to be the sexy whore, without all the guilt and shame.

This special blend of sexual excitement mixed with security and comfort- two things that are usually polar opposites. (Ie most of the time we find ourselves sexually attracted to only assholes we don't feel safe around) is extremely powerful, and it's the motivating force behind how all families (and thus morals) are started, and how love blossoms and continues the human race. It is what thrusts evolution, and really everything forward. It is pure momentum.

Freud was on the right track, sort of, when he said that people wanted to fuck their moms.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Here is why love always wins out in the end.

Love understands that your brain is programmed to criticize and question love and to intellectually analyze it. That's why the 'half father/half mother formula works so fucking well, because it's a naturally ambivalent process and lives in a 'misty confusing place.' That's why love feels so dreamy and poetic and confusing, you kinda want to question it. And why hatred feels so clear. 'The clarity of hatred' is a common cliched phrase.

So love isn't something you can really fight or win against, because it's the natural question mark. 'Does he love me?' a shy fag wonders while walking on a beach and hearing the waves crash on the shore....while watching a bluebird fly over the neon sun. Does he really love me? It can't be true, love isn't real- people just have jobs and they complain and they pay their taxes and then they die. It can't be real??? I'm being so silly. I just need to get a job.'

But then it happens, kinda just like in the movies you meet somebody and you really, really genuinely enjoy each other. All that other stuff sort of falls into place on its own. Not that it won't be hard work. But now, you're actually motivated to do something about it. It wasn't even all that hard though, it just took some effort that you weren't applying yourself. Again, the natural ambivalent mix of 'love' helps you come to these realizations on your own. Softness and compassion become filling in your eyes again.

And the lover gives you your space, and your own independent freedom something that you probably were worried about. You want to be with this person, because well you want to be with this person- so it kinda plays a 'funny play' on your sense of independence. And the two lovers walk in the world sharing hearts , not caring that other people don't understand their love, because they do.

nobody wants to see you that happy though so the real harsh straight man world comes in and breaks you guys apart because it needs you to be a machine to make somebody else stronger. But that's the drama and fun of it. SEAN DON'T LEAVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WE'RE BROKEN APART BUT WE WILL BE REUNITED ONCE MORE IN FAGGY UNITY! I WON'T LET ANYBODY HURT YOU.

(where's dolphin?)

[chip]

hmmm I had not considered the oedipus complex as a contributing factor but I do believe that can influence people's behaviour but has no influence upon their happiness, let alone, finding true love. A significant aspect to the oedipus complex is incest dread. However I do not see the relevancy of including Freudian psychoanalytics to explain attraction.

I've read socionic articles mentioning children growing up in close relationships with their duals are better adjusted than those without. They make mention of the fact that for those without duality in childhood, interaction with your dual can be a transformational. I can consider child development in general but frankly Freud is pop pyschology - when given enough time, Freud has become conventional. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I consider the term "milf" to essentially express what Freudian psychoanalytics really means these days.

Neuroscientists and psychologists dismiss psycholoanalytics. Freud is hailed for his groundbreaking work but in the long run much of his theories remain tenative even after a century. There is studies of dreams revealing brain activity and chemical secretion indicating that dreams distract us from reality to allow oursleves to sleep otherwise we would be constantly alert and unable to rest. In other words dreams are not symbolic but merely functional.

I remember listening to the radio with Dr. Drew. The guy on the phone was saying he was having 'strange' dreams. He mentioned a dream inwhich he had sex with his mother. Dr. Drew instantly picked up the real cause. He asked the caller are you taking any medication, "yes", I can not recall the name but basically the medication has that effect, a common effect. That is to say the dreams indicate nothing of his childhood other than his present medical condition.

A interesting biographical fact about Freud is he used cocaine for medicinal purposes. He later renounced the practice and felt ashamed.

In so far as refering to a 'fag' walking on the beach wondering if she loves me or wanting a 'faggy' unity that means you have distain or contempt toward such emotions. I have to admit I find it amusing but at the same time I'd suggest brushing up on your romance as what your saying is very cliche.

I suppose the question remains open. When does psychological compatibility begin? perhaps I can qualify the question. When does psychological compatibility begin to supercede ancient astrological wisdom, science, convention and romance? In my opinon conventional wisdom is likely the greatest deterrent to allow for psychological compatibility. I have read plenty of confessions on this forum and on socionics.com basically stating: convention trumps socionics. Even for duals that managed to get pass those iniatial stages of frustration, they likely understand themselves in terms of convention. The obvious conclusion is socionics is unconventional and that is why duality sometimes does not occur.

When socionics state there is non-socionic factors that is all I meant to demonstrate here. Duality is to be yourself but obviously when you consider astrology, science, psycholoanalytics, conventional wisdom and idealic notions of fate, a persons identity is blurred. I'm educated in socionics but that does not qualify me as a socionics expert. In the same line of reasoning people who vomit up Freudian analytics do not comprehend that he did not write his theories for the general public. Every author has an audience in mind. Freud's audience was psychologists like himself imo.

I'm skeptical of interpreting dreams and psycholoanalytics. I'm an empiricists.

[chip]

Here is why love always wins out in the end.

Love understands that your brain is programmed to criticize and question love and to intellectually analyze it. That's why the 'half father/half mother formula works so fucking well, because it's a naturally ambivalent process and lives in a 'misty confusing place.' That's why love feels so dreamy and poetic and confusing, you kinda want to question it. And why hatred feels so clear. 'The clarity of hatred' is a common cliched phrase.

So love isn't something you can really fight or win against, because it's the natural question mark. 'Does he love me?' a shy fag wonders while walking on a beach and hearing the waves crash on the shore....while watching a bluebird fly over the neon sun. Does he really love me? It can't be true, love isn't real- people just have jobs and they complain and they pay their taxes and then they die. It can't be real??? I'm being so silly. I just need to get a job.'

But then it happens, kinda just like in the movies you meet somebody and you really, really genuinely enjoy each other. All that other stuff sort of falls into place on its own. Not that it won't be hard work. But now, you're actually motivated to do something about it. It wasn't even all that hard though, it just took some effort that you weren't applying yourself. Again, the natural ambivalent mix of 'love' helps you come to these realizations on your own. Softness and compassion become filling in your eyes again.

And the lover gives you your space, and your own independent freedom something that you probably were worried about. You want to be with this person, because well you want to be with this person- so it kinda plays a 'funny play' on your sense of independence. And the two lovers walk in the world sharing hearts , not caring that other people don't understand their love, because they do.

nobody wants to see you that happy though so the real harsh straight man world comes in and breaks you guys apart because it needs you to be a machine to make somebody else stronger. But that's the drama and fun of it. SEAN DON'T LEAVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WE'RE BROKEN APART BUT WE WILL BE REUNITED ONCE MORE IN FAGGY UNITY! I WON'T LET ANYBODY HURT YOU.

(where's dolphin?)

ummm did you take what I wrote and apply it to your own life to suit you?
The opposite of convention is invention. I am inventive and alittle eccentric but I never meant convention to mean straight but I admit to the majority, that is what convention means.