Fake Duals
Activators: occasionally does or says something that subconsciously makes you expect them to say or do something dual-like, only they never deliver.
Conflictors: looks like a dual, walks like a dual and talks like a dual, only isn't your dual.
What other fake duals are out there?
anyone you fall in love with. lol
IEI-Fe 4w3
This.Originally Posted by redbaron
Illusionary
Isn't that the definition closest besides conflictors as quasi identical ?
On the surface they seem dual like, easy duals, but once you skim below they are just playing sides of the situation.
Semi-dual of course. It's like there's strong attraction, but you can't really understand them and they do and say things that annoy you, although you wouldn't know at first.
Any dual you don't like too, then
This. Anytime I really like someone, think they understand my feelings right off the bat, and seem to share similar intellectual prerogatives with, they turn out to be IEI. Which makes sense in the context of Ne and Ni sharing intellectual duality. Differences in values start to emerge over time.
It's been my experience that real duality (if you've never experienced it before) needs a while to take root and hold.
I still like hanging out with them though.
Oh of course, I love my LII friends to death, but they keep disappointing me, likeI still like hanging out with them though.
Oh! OH!! He's gonna make some crazy connection or say something really interesting here it comes!!!! Oh he's just categorising things
The activator part is so true.
At least with the way I type, I find it bizarre that you can confuse your conflictor with your dual, activation is somewhat understandable, but still strange for me since I've experienced a bunch of both TeSi and SiTe, I can't say I would mistake them for each other. Closest bet I would say is your illusion or semi-dual, which makes sense, though for me personally, I couldn't every mix up an SiTe with SiFe, but NiTe and SiTe can be a a problem sometimes.
ETA: As well, one thing I actually liked about the Filatova books was how there are many situations where a dual relations is actually a negative thing, or not the best. So really, I don't know why people are still not over the whole "Duality is the best, and everything else is just settling." I've had more luck with enjoyable (general) relationships with my activity relation than dual, and it's only when my dual is more mature that I can deal with them.
Last edited by Mattie; 09-16-2010 at 05:41 AM.
lol everything in this paragraph is gonna piss off Mattie.
Semi-duality and illusory are probably the best bets for near-duality, given the "compatible" temperaments and one IE pair matching up between the two. It also seems to be influenced by subtype, like creative subtype Illusory partners can kinda act as semi-duals. Activity would probably come after that, and I'd like to think that with subtypes activity partners can kinda simulate the psychological comfort duality without having "compatible" temperaments.
So how do you type, Mattie? I was just posting about how easy it is for me to end up with my conflictor. I'm so very attracted to the E and the S that I'd find in my dual. E and S make me happy. So I see those qualities and have a hard time sorting out the rest.
T versus F--a wash. I like both qualities.
J is currently just NO for my long-term happiness.
I'm just so angry
If you type just by broad letters like that, then sure, that's understandable that you would mix up your dual and conflictor because they are one letter apart. I personally type by trying to directly identify the IMEs, and what's the most typical for me is that I spot someone's creative IME first. So it's easier for me to confuse two types that share creative IMEs, but it would be hard to confuse conflictor and dual because if you've identified an IME in the ego block, then that rules it out. However, it isn't as bewildering for me to hear that someone can confuse their super-ego relation with their dual relation at times, that actually makes sense since the arrangement of IMEs are very similar, just swapped around by block.
What does filatova say its no good for? Doing work?
:3~I'm just so angry
Now this part sounds weird to me. Super-ego vs duality feels so incredibly different to me from a psychological standpoint that I could never imagine mixing the two up.If you type just by broad letters like that, then sure, that's understandable that you would mix up your dual and conflictor because they are one letter apart. I personally type by trying to directly identify the IMEs, and what's the most typical for me is that I spot someone's creative IME first. So it's easier for me to confuse two types that share creative IMEs, but it would be hard to confuse conflictor and dual because if you've identified an IME in the ego block, then that rules it out. However, it isn't as bewildering for me to hear that someone can confuse their super-ego relation with their dual relation at times, that actually makes sense since the arrangement of IMEs are very similar, just swapped around by block.
Last edited by Galen; 09-16-2010 at 07:25 AM.
I can't see mixing up super-ego and duality either. I know no ILIs like any ILEs I know (but I do know an ILI who is like an LII), but I know some LIE and ILE crossovers, though they're uncommon: most LIEs and ILEs I know are actually rather different.
I mean for a non-Socionics practitioner, your conflictor and your dual are likely more ambiguous than for a socionics practitioner. (And even then, people who've been nolfing this shitcrock longer will have a harder time mixing it up than those who're less experienced)
Note that I didn't mean that you DO commonly mistake your super-ego for your dual, but for me personally, I would find it more understandable than mistaking the conflictor. This is because the super-ego has the most similar positions to your dual, because their id block is the dual's ego block, and no other type has this switch around relationship with your dual (basically, every type's extinguishment relation). The conflictor has everything switched, and wouldn't operate at all the same way; the only reason people link a type with their quasi-identical is because of the MBTI-look of the types (ISTj and ISTp, in my instance), so people who are looking for I, S, T, J and/or P will find less difference than someone looking for,
,
,
.
I don't see how this is relevant, seeing that the question was directed to people who are aware of Socionics. I can only see a superficial linkage to why people would confuse their dual with conflictor.I mean for a non-Socionics practitioner, your conflictor and your dual are likely more ambiguous than for a socionics practitioner. (And even then, people who've been nolfing this shitcrock longer will have a harder time mixing it up than those who're less experienced
are you polikujm? You have the same avatar and type as he currently has.
The easiest "fake dual" is your conflictor IMHO
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
It wasn't relevant, I was just making a comment.
Do you come here just to snark and Propound Your Views or something?
Pretty much
You crazy Serious typesPretty much
Yes, this happens a lot for me as well.Oh of course, I love my LII friends to death, but they keep disappointing me, like
Oh! OH!! He's gonna make some crazy connection or say something really interesting here it comes!!!! Oh he's just categorising things
I don't think I really mistake conflictors for duals either. I've had moments when I thought my dual was my conflictor because said dual was a conflictor "on points" if that makes sense. But then the intertype relation was obviously positive. Generally if I think someone is my conflictor but I find myself being unusually open with them, I retype them as my dual. lol.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
I've never been completely set on my type, or on other people's either, so I tend to just go with how comfortable things feel. I think you can tell when you run into duals and spend enough time with them. It's like you can start to follow your first impulses all the time and it pretty much always works out. I'm not sure how you would type a conflictor as a dual unless you hadn't gotten a chance to hang out with them much.
yeah I agree. sometimes LSEs expect me to be EII but once they have a few conversations with me and get the chance to observe me in different situations and around other betas, they are turned off. lolol
IEI-Fe 4w3
Semi-dual with subtype duality. For me D-IEE.
That's almost, but not quite entirely unlike duality.
I was probably wrong about this.That's almost, but not quite entirely unlike duality.
Yeah i was confused by that too. But maybe this is the case only if you've never experienced duality, and/or you're approaching someone from a distance thinking they might be your dual, but then discover the differences.
I'm thinking the activity vs dual might be more true, especially with subtype nuances. Like, being Fi-IEE, I sometimes think Te-LSEs are SLIs and vice versa, until i sort out things in detail and even then sometimes i'm not sure. (e.g. Christopher Plummer, and an ex-boss of mine).
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
As has been said, illusionary, semi dual, activator, and conflictor are all poentially fake duals, yet amm of them are still favorable except one.
I think in my case, my tendency to have attracted my conflictors boils down to multiple factors.
1. It's true that I had no experience of duality.
2. My conflictors have often pursued me.
3. My conflictors have several of the traits I need in a partner.
4. Society sez ... that my conflictor's traits are good ones, and that mine are not so good.
4. I'm an idiot.
Keep in mind, I was never typing people according to Socionics. I was merely living my life, and life has often thrown my conflictors into my path. Now I am looking backward and trying to sort it out.
It occurred to me, while reading your post, that life has thrown quite a few "duals" in my path at just the right time. I have a belief that people come into our lives for a reason when they are needed and then when we have experienced and learned everything we can from each other the relationship naturally fades away (that is why I don't tend to hold onto people) and then we meet the next person who helps us navigate whatever paths we chose before incarnating into this crazy, fucked up, beautiful world.
I am only now seeing this "they were my dual" stuff in hindsight. It wasn't always in the context of healthy relationships because for one I was pretty young and rebellious beyond what normal teen rebellion looks like. I think I would have mistaken a few duals for conflictors due to us being sx first but looking back I can see where they fit the dual intertype relationship and not the conflictor. My lifestyle choices probably made it near impossible for me to interact with conflictors, before the age of 21, unless it was in a courtroom or institutional setting. Even then I couldn't say for sure if any of the bureaucrats and therapists assigned to straighten me out were even conflictors since it was their job to do what they did. I got along pretty well with them too. I think I had a couple delta therapists over the years.
When I was 13 my alternative school guidance counselor was most likely SLE. I went to school drunk and he didn't want me to get expelled so he put me in his van and we drove around and talked until I sobered up enough to go back to school in time to catch a bus home. He never touched me or was inappropriate in any way since he was like 30. He just bailed me out of one trouble after another and seemed to always understand me. More than half the girls in school, including me, were "in love" with him.
I was primarily drawn to Beta and later Gamma environments with a few alphas and deltas thrown in. Usually the deltas would be IEE if they were there at all. I would say the conflictor interactions I have had were primarily online. I notice that my sister was drawn to delta quadra pretty young even though she had to hang out with me and wanted to emulate me. She would usually find the one or two deltas in the group and split off. I don't think she ever met a dual while hanging out with me and my friends. I do keep in mind that it is harder to type someone under 21 so who knows what some of them developed into later.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
What's up nutter butter?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
You'll never come down from your high horse and be the EII that you are.I didn't realize you saw me as being so rare on this forum. lol You still haven't made your case for EII btw and I have asked. You are so emotionally attached to the IEI label your mother gave you that you want to be the only one. Good luck with that. I see other types doing it too, if you follow my drift. Do you feel like you benefit from chasing me around with an EII label? Maybe you are the EII.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
