Clearing something up about IPs and EJs

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

A little while ago I said something about how ip-ej clash etc.

However they really don't, because EIE and LSI is part of my quadra, and I really don't clash with them, obviously.

So if you see that written on sites or whatever, it's a big fat lie. Obviously it's not really the raw temperament that makes us conflicts with certain types, but other psychological factors lined up.

Another thing I would like to clear up on Rick's site is that he stupidly assumed that extroverts and introverts always meshed well together (and introverts always clash), in a sweeping, general statement on one of his posts. Yeaaah like I'm really eager to take a picnic with an LSE anytime soon. You just can't make such big vague, general statements like that no matter how pretty they look, no matter how easily they fit in your minuscule, arrogant view of the world.

SLE being my dual and LSE being my conflictor is just one small part of the puzzle, that people act like it's the whole thing. You know what, what does it take to make people understand that your Identity, Activity or even your Semi-Dual could be the best match for you, for non-socionics related reasons as well. Duals are still great, don't get me wrong- but I managed w/o one many times before, and I can easily do it again.

Psychology is important, and certainly interesting in our lives but there are a lot of other factors that people take into consideration when choosing whom to socialize with. Sometimes we want to talk to people just cause they look and smell good. Shallow? I don't think so, 'it's just human nature.'

[Jarno]

Duals are still great, don't get me wrong- but I managed w/o one many times before, and I can easily do it again.

nobody has said that your life sucks without your dual...

on contrary, I've read quite some descriptions which say negative things about dualism. Like the frustration of seeing how your dual responses to other people. You have opposite personality, which is especially usefull when interacting together, not watching your dual interacting with someone else. The second thing that I read somewhere is that you have a need for people with your ego functions, which is something your dual can't supply.

Dual is usually the best romantic relationship, but it's not a necessity for a happy life or something.

[UDP]

I don't know if I believe this, but then again I don't have a clue about what I'm looking for anymore.

it must be difficult to be the wife of two men.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't think dual is the best romantic relationship either, I view duality as the most 'comforting' relationship or something. I think it's only possible to enjoy your dual, truly, when they're away.

I view Identity as the best romantic relationship. I view duals as, they cover up your weaknesses in an objective, 'real-world' sense.

But just because somebody is giving me something that is lacking, and is a good psychological 'puzzle piece' to my own, doesn't equate a romantic attraction. Do you even know what romance is? It's simply the feeling of excitement and love, but never actually happening or arriving, it's the general driving force of ALL things in the world. Romance has no substance or thought, it's just like a cloud above us all that makes us keep on moving and trying to endlessly 'get better.'

Romantic love is not the be end of love. It's only the first stage. All is full of love. People like romantic love though because it feels so freeing, and idealistic- like this person is going to fix the world for you. But it's only the beginning.

Ultimately, nobody is really right or wrong with this, as socionics itself isn't an exact science.

[UDP]

Ultimately, nobody is really right or wrong with this, as socionics itself isn't an exact science.

Socionics doesn't say anything about right or wrong.

...but yeah I know what you mean.

[Creepy-male]

I don't know if I believe this, but then again I don't have a clue about what I'm looking for anymore.

[cracka]

I don't know if I believe this, but then again I don't have a clue about what I'm looking for anymore.

+1. Well said.

[calenwen]

So basically you're saying that duality is overrated.

And I agree.

[Creepy-male]

Wow, you poor people.

My dual's pretty fantastic.

Why do your experiences suck then?

[Mattie]

Wow, you poor people.

My dual's pretty fantastic.

Why do your experiences suck then?

I think the main point is that a dual relationship =/= infallible happiness. I can agree with that, but at the same time, I still recognize the higher percentage of chance of harmony with a dual relation.

To me, everyone will have preferences among types based on both their life experience and their type. There have been comments on how some people of one type prefer people of a particular quadra and someone else of the same time prefer another. I think that socionics predicts which relations have a higher chance of succeeding to a person of a particular type, without accounting for personal experience.

To me, an ISTp is one of a few types I would predict that I would have a good chance of harmonizing the easiest/best with, but they are also really hard to even get to that stage. I have a lot of INTps in my life that tend to inflame my annoyance for this habit, that I see at least IxTps have, to just randomly disappear, not really answer their phone or communicate much if at all, and just leave you guessing on what is actually going on with them. It drives me up the wall, because I know there will be this great synchronicity once we get past that, but I haven't been able to. So most of my interests have been in ExTjs, because they are a lot more willing to keep in touch with me and return SOME sort of signal.

With my own insight, I know ISTps are a great match for me and I'd love to really get to know one and date one. But because of out initial differences, sometimes the effort seems to be in vain. But I don't feel like my life is robbed of anything because socionics says that my dual is my best relation, I've had better times in my life with other types that I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. And hopefully others don't think that duals are all that is there for them.

[sigma]

I don't think dual is the best romantic relationship either, I view duality as the most 'comforting' relationship or something. I think it's only possible to enjoy your dual, truly, when they're away.

I guess it depends on what you see as a romantic relationship.

in "Character Strengths and Virtues", Peterson and Seligman say something like this:
“love is marked by the sharing of aid, comfort and acceptance.”

comfort and acceptance might be very high in an identity relationship too BUT a dual has the best chance at helping you how you want to be helped.

If you enjoy your dual only while he or she is away... you might be leading a very unaware life.
Paying more attention to the present moment will reveal the true effect of your dual.
Also, it is worth mentioning that paying attention to the present moment is something that can be developed with proper practice, just like a muscle. That practice is meditation.

[Creepy-male]

Also, it is worth mentioning that paying attention to the present moment is something that can be developed with proper practice, just like a muscle. That practice is dualizing with a Senser.

Fixed.

Now you know.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Can we please get off this 'present moment' kick? Tolle just wrote that crap to lure self-conscious people into buying his books.

There has been no scientific, peer-reviewed verifiable evidence that suggests living in the moment is better for everybody. I like 'The Law of Attraction' myself but like anything esoteric, it only works if it speaks to you, subjectively.

I just think what Tolle meant was this: (and it's simple advice and NOT something that one should write a book about) that you shouldn't dwell on depressing things in the past, because what's the point? What happened happened, and dwelling negativity on the past can only be detrimental to your health. But sometimes we have to look backwards in the past, at GOOD things- to find the strength to move forward. Also planning ahead, and being aware of what people are most likely going to say isn't a bad thing at all, and you'll find out- the world runs in a very safe, predictable fashion more than not, and it's not that difficult to get yourself 'caught up' with it.

Living in the moment doesn't work for everybody, I think it's poor advice to give to Ni-egos especially, since our Ni is so easy for us to use, I don't think it really weighs us down/is painful for us to entertain the past and future so easily.

Put it this way. What if, the 'here and now' reality you're currently experiencing is absolute shit? Then you'd want to dissociate yourself a bit for your own self-survival. I guess what we're arguing here, at its base core is 'fighting' or 'flighting.' But each choice is ultimately acceptable, they BOTH keep you alive. Tolle wants people to fight, because of his Se-polr he's confused about what confidence really means. I'm saying (and I give this advice to SLEs all the time) that, sometimes you get away from a predator by fleeing too. By being smart enough to run away, and idealize/imagination the situation so it played out differently.

Only fight if you know you can win. Otherwise you will be crushed by something inherently more powerful. Otherwise, run away- and dream about the past and the future until you get enough psychic energy to try again.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

If you followed Tolle's advice too much, you also wouldn't experience nostalgia. When you're nostalgic, that kind of 'aww, I miss that person' etc. you're not 'living in the moment' either.

Living in the moment doesn't bring you happiness, it doesn't give your life meaning. It's not the end of all life. All living in the moment does, is well- make you live in the moment. It doesn't mean anything more than that, because nothing exists in a vacuum not even 'living in the moment.' I wouldn't advocate that advice to everybody just because it SOUNDS good in the book. The Bible SOUNDS good too, but that doesn't mean it exists.

And you and your dual aren't in a vacuum together either. Sooo if it's more beneficial to you, overall- to NOT live in the moment, if you're in a bad situation, and your dual enough isn't enough to truly save you (They're just one person) Then it's probably best to only live in the moment when you know it's safe to do so.

Law of Attraction isn't something you should take too seriously either. Anything estoeric like that, you're meant to have fun with it - because if you are TRULY LIVING LIFE not just analyzing about what would be nice, you will have to use all sorts of philosophies and 'doctrines' depending on the situation.

[sigma]

Living in the moment doesn't bring you happiness

Actually it does. And there is scientific, peer-reviewed verifiable evidence for this.
If you want to learn more, you should study the field of Positive Psychology.
Here is a small article about Mindfulness:
” Mindfulness: A Call to Clarification " on Positive Psychology News Daily

[sigma]

If you followed Tolle's advice too much, you also wouldn't experience nostalgia. When you're nostalgic, that kind of 'aww, I miss that person' etc. you're not 'living in the moment' either.

That's not entirely true IMHO. Becoming aware that you are missing someone NOW is one thing. Lingering in a long passed time is another. Desiring a different past, present of future is further more... a different thing.

You can be here and now and miss someone without attaching yourself to the past.

[sigma]

Put it this way. What if, the 'here and now' reality you're currently experiencing is absolute shit?

Master said: "The present moment is never unbearable. It is what you think is coming in the next five minutes, or five days, weeks or months that drives you to despair."

There is a hidden power inside each human being, it stems from the undeniable freedom to choose one's attitude towards any circumstance. You have within you the power to choose to be happy in spite of the world falling apart around you.

The fact that your are unaware of this power is not proof that it doesn't exist. Oh, and since you like scientific stuff... you can study even this...
Logotherapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[redbaron]

that's why there's such a great balance between the here-and-now abilities of the SLE and the more dreamy past-future thoughts of the IEI. ahhhh.... there's no meaning without action and the action must mean something, it seeks a context.

I do find identicals to be more "romantic" in the traditional sense. I fell hard for an IEI when I was a teenager and the whole relationship was totally Romeo-Juliet-esque. I know several dual marriages that seem bored (married for anywhere between 15-25 years). So it's not like there's some absolute guarantee that if you marry your dual, you'll be happy forevermore. But I do think they're probably the most conflict-free, all other things being equal (which they never are. how can all other things possibly be equal??).

[sigma]

So it's not like there's some absolute guarantee that if you marry your dual, you'll be happy forevermore.

I agree... socionics duality is only a tendency... just as the whole idea of type is just a tendency. You can become a great version of your type or a lousy one. The same is true for relationships... they can become a mature, productive collaboration or just a saner relationship... or, in some cases, a lousy exception to the rule...

[redbaron]

Why should anyone care if they're a "lousy version of their type" though? Type is just a subjective sort of construct developed by several individuals that we happen to be employing for goodness knows what reasons. It's not something that we should feel that we have to conform to.

I think "lousy version" was meant to mean more like "unhealthy". Everyone wants to be a healthy version of themselves.

[Jarno]

I don't think dual is the best romantic relationship either, I view duality as the most 'comforting' relationship or something. I think it's only possible to enjoy your dual, truly, when they're away.

I view Identity as the best romantic relationship. I view duals as, they cover up your weaknesses in an objective, 'real-world' sense.

But just because somebody is giving me something that is lacking, and is a good psychological 'puzzle piece' to my own, doesn't equate a romantic attraction. Do you even know what romance is? It's simply the feeling of excitement and love, but never actually happening or arriving, it's the general driving force of ALL things in the world. Romance has no substance or thought, it's just like a cloud above us all that makes us keep on moving and trying to endlessly 'get better.'

Romantic love is not the be end of love. It's only the first stage. All is full of love. People like romantic love though because it feels so freeing, and idealistic- like this person is going to fix the world for you. But it's only the beginning.

Ultimately, nobody is really right or wrong with this, as socionics itself isn't an exact science.

bullshit

[Jarno]

I think the main point is that a dual relationship =/= infallible happiness. I can agree with that, but at the same time, I still recognize the higher percentage of chance of harmony with a dual relation.

Exactly

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[redbaron]

but I promise you, a lot of things you can't even imagine. There is a huge amount of day-to-day details which count but almost nobody pay enough attention to recall them.

I agree with this. I have never been in a serious romantic relationship with my dual, however, having become good friends with one recently I can say that there are a lot of things that happen on a day-to-day basis that are smoothed over easily with one's dual that would become much bigger issues with another type. I've seen this first hand. With your dual there's this sigh of relief that you're not misunderstood (or if you are, it's EASILY cleared up) and that never become a big deal and thus are quickly forgotten. it's really, really nice.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

bullshit

Nope. *True*shit, dear. Socionics has little true objectivity to it. It's in the same category as astrology. Astrology isn't total bullshit either. But it is what I like to call 'half bullshit.' Just plain bull without the shit. Look at how none of us can agree even in basic, simple premises. That's because any attempts at psychoanalyzing an individual, or even a group of people- require a lot of personal opinion and subjectivity. There's no way to get around this. Take person A to 10 different shrinks and the shrinks are liable to have 10 unique opinions of that individual. Happened to me lots of times before.

Your best bet is to ask as many people as possible what you're truly like on the inside........but even that isn't perfect.

And my personal experiences with duality are obviously different than yours. All the threads about two IEIs clashing I can't relate to. How do you explain that? The theory is malleable. It's made to be. You want something set in stone so your life will be easier, so nothing can confuse you anymore, so you can't be challenged. Sorry bud that's not gonna happen. People are always gonna throw you for a loop, and thinking you can control them by labeling them in a personality typology is just setting yourself up for being lonely and hurt in the world.

[Creepy-male]

Afaik you're not in a dual relationship, are you? If not, I would tell you they make the same mistake as you do: they have no idea how it is to be and live with your dual . Although, you may have perceived a glimpse of how things could be because you anticipate based on Socionics logical explanations, but I promise you, a lot of things you can't even imagine. There is a huge amount of day-to-day details which count but almost nobody pay enough attention to recall them.

Ah.

No, I'm not in a romantic relationship.

But we're still BFFFL. Sorry for being misleading~

But if daily contact is this awesome, what about living together could change it? I remain optimistic.

[sigma]

Socionics has little true objectivity to it. It's in the same category as astrology. Astrology isn't total bullshit either.

I for one view Astrology as bullshit.

The view I have about Socionics is of a statistical nature. It deals with probabilities and statistical pressure.

i.e. A dual relationship between type A and type B has the tendency to become this or that. This doesn't mean that the relation ship will always evolve like that... is not true for each and every case.... but on a large scale... this is the tendency.

[Jarno]

Nope. *True*shit, dear. Socionics has little true objectivity to it. It's in the same category as astrology.

Socionics has been created with a scientific approach and survives observational testing. Astrology is created on a basis of belief, and fails all scientific tests.

They are different, if not opposites. So please don't spread lies.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Maybe the comparison was a little sketchy, but the fact of the matter is that it only makes sense that we would have some alterations in our personality depending on the seasons and year we were born. You can categorize people in a general way based on that, just like you can categorize people using a socionics tool.

But neither is a hard science.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Astrology is created on a basis of belief, and fails all scientific tests.

No it doesn't. If that were true, people would consider it complete hogwash and, they don't. People noticed trends of personality based on when people were born.

Just like the Bible is filled with all sorts of half-truths. To a person with not much 'real world experience' astrology, socionics, religion....all of that crap, has a tendency to put them more at ease with the unknown.

If you think socionics as a system works the best compared to the 562394872390427 GUHzillions way we have of looking at the world, well then you better be able to show a lot of proof if you're right.

[Jarno]

People noticed trends of personality based on when people were born.

People notice these trends... do scientists notice them too?

[Mattie]

look.to.the.sky: I agree with you, yet compared to you (and some other IEEs) I am bothered by the waste of time and emotional effort in a failed relationship, the interesting and valuable experience itself is of little concern to me.

I know I'm a little strange for an ENFp at times, but I think it has to do with my particular life experiences rather than something to do with type. But, in actuality, I have to agree with you with being bothered with emotional efforts in failed relationships, I am actually known to my friends to be someone who ultimately turns down a lot of people because I predict that it isn't going to work out. So in a sense, I only commit to something I'm certain for the time I wouldn't mind being committed to, so in essence, I've been in very few relationships with a large amount of opportunity.

Concerning Astrology vs Socionics, though I did entertain Astrology for a while, Socionics is nothing like Astrology. Astrology is a predetermination that you do not assign to yourself off of your own observable traits, an already established system bestows traits onto you (supposedly). "Self-typing" and changing your sign can't happen in Astrology, and I feel more comfortable saying that Socionics is built on more observable data, though at the same time, said data comes through a subjective filter.

Personally, I think you should read up on Socionics as much as it interests you, then take away from it what you do find practical. If relations seem like an unfitting system, you still have a good organization on functions. For me, I've always been good at relationship advice and insight on other people, but now I have an "objective" set of terms to help explain my intuitions to someone else instead of "I just have this vibe."

Honestly, every relation can be better or worse than it's given credit here. My best friend is an ENTp, and I can't imagine a better friendship, because I don't need one. Just because of Socionics, no one should be like "I need friends in my quadra." and dump their current situation. I do, however, feel like I need more people from my quadra in my life because, in theory, I will feel more comfort coming from healthy relationships with these types, and I can see that. I used to have a lot of Gammas in my life, and now I have a lot of Alphas, and every once in a while I feel like I need people who just "get" me. But at the same time, I enjoy these people, regardless of type, I just can now explain it if there's dissatisfaction with my social group (for example).

[Jarno]

Honestly, every relation can be better or worse than it's given credit here.

The word 'relationship' in combination with Socionics creates some confusion because of its wide definition.

Socionics is more about interaction patterns.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

"Self-typing" and changing your sign can't happen in Astrology, and I feel more comfortable saying that Socionics is built on more observable data, though at the same time, said data comes through a subjective filter.

You need empirical evidence. That kind of awesome knowledge that you usually can only pay for in this backwards country. When we have 52394872394827 posts of people having a heated discussion about what 'Fi means', how can such a thing truly exist if it's different for everybody? We have to agree to some base criteria or it's meaningless. Just like everybody has to accept that the world is indeed a sphere, not flat. And transexuals exist. LOL.

There's some things that are important to your 'taste' and others are not. In doesn't matter if you like Mozart better than Beethoven, if you touch fire you're gonna get fucking burned. If Socionics is some sort of law that governs us- then can we please stop being so fucking subjective? We banter and go back and forth when one of us tries to explain even the simplest of functions. Ultimately it amounts to nothing. It's like saying 'what's a better color, blue or green?' It becomes an impossible question to answer, factually- so it's just a bunch of hot air talking at once.

There should be a socionics bible sort of. But it should be user created. Something that the *entire* community contributes to. I'll post more on this later.

[Jarno]

You need empirical evidence. That kind of awesome knowledge that you usually can only pay for in this backwards country. When we have 52394872394827 posts of people having a heated discussion about what 'Fi means', how can such a thing truly exist if it's different for everybody?

There also exist heated debates in science forums. It's no argument that something can't exist if a bunch of people exchange their viewpoints.

Socionics predicts interactions, and behaviour. It's a good working and practical model.

[betterthan]

I don't think dual is the best romantic relationship either, I view duality as the most 'comforting' relationship or something. I think it's only possible to enjoy your dual, truly, when they're away.

I view Identity as the best romantic relationship. I view duals as, they cover up your weaknesses in an objective, 'real-world' sense.

But just because somebody is giving me something that is lacking, and is a good psychological 'puzzle piece' to my own, doesn't equate a romantic attraction. Do you even know what romance is? It's simply the feeling of excitement and love, but never actually happening or arriving, it's the general driving force of ALL things in the world. Romance has no substance or thought, it's just like a cloud above us all that makes us keep on moving and trying to endlessly 'get better.'

Romantic love is not the be end of love. It's only the first stage. All is full of love. People like romantic love though because it feels so freeing, and idealistic- like this person is going to fix the world for you. But it's only the beginning.

Ultimately, nobody is really right or wrong with this, as socionics itself isn't an exact science.

Hmm.

Why?

I love my identicals, I utterly adore this male identical that I know, I think he is the most adorable person I have ever met, I just feel so much love for him & I don't even know him that well. I've never felt this way about a dual. It's more just like a raw connection, but no deeper affinity.

Actually I don't know why, to us, the topic matters that much. Why don't we just fill our worlds up with identicals, duals and mirrors and activity partners? Then be with whoever we find ourselves attracted to the most, and if it doesn't work out with that person, move along.

I keep trying to choose partners based on our socionics compatibility, which is rather ridiculous because I don't even want the people in my life that I am most compatible with, I just wish that I did because I look at them as being the most adept at 'fulfilling me' . Gosh, there are so many other things that matter like how interesting a person is for one LOL. (blahblahrandomcrap)

I don't think it's that duality is overrated but more that romantic relationships are. It's the whole illusion that love will save us, but it never does so we delude ourselves, & complain that there is something wrong with duality rather than accepting the hollowness of the whole 'saving love' bullshit.

[sigma]

It's the whole illusion that love will save us, but it never does so we delude ourselves, & complain that there is something wrong with duality rather than accepting the hollowness of the whole 'saving love' bullshit.

Love saves all, however... most of what people label as love is in fact attachment, infatuation and that's a completely different thing.

Here is someone that expresses it better:

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[sigma]

sigma, love is not understood the same way by all the people. There are more important things in life than it. I think you should not insist so much on it, for your own self-development.

I agree, the understanding is very different. However, there is nothing more important in my life than love. I do insist on understanding it better and I know, without the slightest shadow of a doubt that this insistence has made me a better man. For my own self-development, love does the trick.

You know, we are both right! That is because my understanding of love is different than your understanding. Love, as you view it, might not be that great BUT love, as I view it, is the greatest thing there is. It is the only thing that is real.

As for the relief brought by love when loosing someone, suffering only occurs if you fight change. If you accept it, suffering morphs into something else.

I have come to realize that the Master was right, both my happiness and my suffering are my own doing. They occur not because of the way life unfolds before me... but because of my attitude towards life.

I have my human nature that I must take into consideration and this human condition is causing a lot of suffering in my life and in the life of those around me.... but I also have my divine nature that has the power to eliminate the suffering. The more I become aware of my divine nature, the less suffering there is in my life. The more I become aware of my actions the more I change. This change, this self-improvement happens without effort... and it is real, not something I read in a book or saw in a movie but something I have experienced in my own life. It is also not a change in nature, but a change in understanding, a change in actions. It is like renouncing old habits.