Is duality is not a perfect criterion for marriage?

[UDP]

Forgive me, but ... (lol)

I am beginning to suspect that the LSE-EII dual pair may be less likely to form than some others. I think my LSE ex, if he knew about Socionics, would have a similar attitude to yours, Ryu, that the EIIs he'd identified were not right for him. And for months I've been receiving emails from what appears to be an LSE who thinks I would be perfect for him. I'm not. I expect that guy would not be likely to pinpoint an EII in his environment as right for him. Sure this is just anecdotal, but it's something I've wondered about after hearing from EIIs who can't find their dual.

Both my ex and the e-mail pursuer seem to think that I could/can be molded into what they want. They also seem to have, deep down, this idea that you can make marriage and relationships work. I'm not sure they'd put it that way themselves. But they seem to elevate pragmatism and control to a level that is untenable where human relationships are concerned. Where love is concerned.

That's sort of a broad generalization about LSEs, don't you think?

Both my ex and the email guy have done the same thing: lay out a practical case for wanting me and get into planning how to be with me. They also easily form/formed a sentimental kind of attachment to me that overrides real wisdom. I sort of see both these men as potentially doomed to end up in unsatisfactory relationships because they are out of touch with ... something. I don't know if I could call it that Ni/Fe problem of not being able to read the vibes and see the long-term picture of how the relationship will play out or what, but it could be one way of viewing the matter.

Ok...(?) And that's because they are LSE, or because they are stupid or about understanding relationships -- or is that one in the same in your mind?

He sounds... blinded, yes. He sounds like someone who's not ready for a relationship, to say the least...

I don't recommend using this forum's duals as a litmus test for what your duals are like. First, you don't really know them, second, they are not spokespeople for their type. Nobody is.

Nether do I. You need to interact with people in real life especially when it comes to real relationships

I do think of myself as a spokesperson on this forum in a way, lol. Redbaron, too. We married our conflictor and supervisee, respectively. We both are experimenting with dual relationships: what is duality, how does it feel, how does it differ from other relations, etc. So think of me as a negative example, if you will, of someone who made the same mistake you might,

Whaaaa?

So you see nondual long term relationships as a mistake? Oh my.

of thinking, quite understandably (and led by an LSE into this thinking), that two well-intentioned, good-hearted people can always make a relationship work, and that one's personal will matters more than funky underlying psychological factors beyond one's control.

I don't know if you've been reading my posts or understand what I'm talking about, but my 'argument' is that socionics is just one factor in things. I'm not saying it doesn't have any influence. And I'm certainly, certainly not saying that "that two well-intentioned, good-hearted people can always make a relationship work, and that one's personal will matters more than..." more than .... more than anything else.

The very thing I am trying to get thinking that if you just do one thing (like find a dual, or "want really hard" to have a good relationship), you're set. I'm not buying that you and whoever else's failed relationships and marriages are because they weren't "your dual".

To be a jerk - if you seriously thought that "being good intentioned" or having "good hearts" were the only things at play in a relationship before you came to duality, then I'd say your chances of having any sort of successful long term endeavor were slim.

If someone can't read the vibes and the signs for what the future looks like, then that person more than anyone else should take Socionics seriously.

They should take a long long ride with themselves, if you ask me

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9sLr9KSDB8

Seriously though...... yes, socionics can help, but, how can you sincerely attribute so much to socionics?

I see from your previous post that you know some duals. Have you known them over the long-term? Because that's what counts, and it's what Socionics best describes: the long-term viability of a relationship.

Disagree.

I believe that to be a projection of many who come to socionics, though. It's what they want socionics to be -- but socionics isn't. Maybe because of, well, past relationship baggage and trying to find an answer, it's even more appealing to put socionics on that pedastal. Socionics does provide some answers, I agree - that's why I'm here. But it's one aspect of relationships, not the whole deal.


And yes, I've known "duals for a long term". Have you known your duals "for a long time?", I don't even know how that is supposed to make sense - I doubt you're going to have any means to compare long term relationships, especially without whatever baggage or experience you've derived from other ones.

...and if all you've learned from past relationships is that you better find your dual, well, I think that should be a concern.

I don't know how to make this clear to someone whom I expect is not holding that long-term picture inside above all, but I will say this:

Making your mind up against duality in advance, based on short-term indicators, isn't logical, even if your arguments are logical.

What, is that what you see me as doing?
I'm not.

I'm arguing against the OP title - duality is a perfect criterion for marriage. And more so, the idea that all you have to do is find your dual and you are set. I that's putting way too much faith in a theoretical system. And I entirely disagree, as mentioned, that socionics is about the long term viability of relationships. Again, I think that's what a lot of people who come to the forum like to tell themselves to feel better about things, but, I think that's assuming a lot -- that your dual is mature, intelligent, attractive, has compatible family attitudes, compatible sex drive, is actually capable of understanding you in a deep way, wants to have a relationship with you, wants something long term, has enough cultural viability to gel with your culture, has enough money based on your preferences for such, and everything else.

-- you know, the kind of stuff that the email guy ought to know about you, to realize that he's not your perfect match? He's apparently too ignorant or desperate or deluded to realize what he's doing --- and he's somebody's dual. I don't think that setting him up with an EII (if that is his actual dual) is going to bring about a fulfilling relationship for them both, just because SOCIONICS IS MAGIC.

[UDP]

That was probably more biting than I'd prefer. Ehhh, sorry, I guess.

[Slacker]

I'm in a dual marriage and have been for a long time (around 13 years or so), and my marriage is much easier than other marriages I've seen, but if we disagreed about any of many major issues, we would be unhappy. Those issues include: children (how many, how to discipline), religion, politics, money, and sex, just to name a few. I've known people who have gotten divorced over those kinds of issues, and I don't think duality would correct them. Also, you have to consider people's families of origin and the impact those relationship have left on people. When you marry someone, you deal with issues they bring with them from before you met them, and not all of those can be corrected. So my husband and I communicate well, and we don't fight, and we don't have to work on our relationship in the way friends in other couples I know talk about, but then we agree about all the aforementioned things in addition to being duals. I think duality can help make an easy relationship, if you get along in other ways, but I know very happy couples who are in non-dual relationships. They might have to work on their relationships to learn how to express appreciation and love and how to see things through their partners' eyes, but they seem to be able to do that, and seem happy.

[golden]

That was probably more biting than I'd prefer. Ehhh, sorry, I guess.

Yeah, that was too much for me. No other response to offer. So if your goal was merely to shut me up, job done.

[Skeptic]

Understand where socionics has come from and what premises it bases its duality conclusion on.

My understanding of Jung's foundation is like this; we habitually use certain IE elements that make up our conscious. IE elements that are incompatible with those conscious IE elements are sheltered in the unconscious. He has prescribed conflict and compatibility within oneself as these elements interact.

Socionics takes that (primarily the work of Jung) and categorizes it using Freudian models (ego, super-ego etc... which are, btw, completely incompatible with Jung's foundational work) and proposes that IE elements that are unconsciously suppressed that complement the ones that are preferred in the immediate conscious are complemented by people who have those compatible complements in their ego (note; Jung did not say this, nor did Freud; this is an inductive leap from a combination of their incompatible systems). They have dubbed this relationship 'duality', which over the course of history has had all sorts of idealistic notions attatched to it.

Better yet, don't take my word for it, read the works of Jung, Freud and those who blended their works to make socionics (Augusta, I believe it is? And a number of others). Ask yourself, does the new system born out of those others honestly merit the enormous assertion that 'duals' are the right ones for each other for life foreverandeverandever and perfectly complement all that they do in physical reality? Absolutely not. Would it even merit the induction that duals, on average, actually get along better than usual in physical reality for extended periods of time? Maybe, but certainly not in every case and not all the time 100%; it is, as Ryu said, but one factor in a sea of many.

So no, duality is certainly not the 'perfect' criteria for marriage. It isn't even verifiable or provable that it makes any major difference at all when compared to the many other different things that factor into something as complex as a relationship.

[FDG]

I'm in a dual marriage and have been for a long time (around 13 years or so), and my marriage is much easier than other marriages I've seen, but if we disagreed about any of many major issues, we would be unhappy. Those issues include: children (how many, how to discipline), religion, politics, money, and sex, just to name a few. I've known people who have gotten divorced over those kinds of issues, and I don't think duality would correct them. Also, you have to consider people's families of origin and the impact those relationship have left on people. When you marry someone, you deal with issues they bring with them from before you met them, and not all of those can be corrected. So my husband and I communicate well, and we don't fight, and we don't have to work on our relationship in the way friends in other couples I know talk about, but then we agree about all the aforementioned things in addition to being duals. I think duality can help make an easy relationship, if you get along in other ways, but I know very happy couples who are in non-dual relationships. They might have to work on their relationships to learn how to express appreciation and love and how to see things through their partners' eyes, but they seem to be able to do that, and seem happy.

Perfect.

[Minde]

That was probably more biting than I'd prefer. Ehhh, sorry, I guess.

If you really prefer to put it differently, to be less biting, why don't you rephrase it again so it sounds how you really want it?

The way it is now, I'm not sure your actual message is getting through all that effectively.





For me, duality is not the most important thing, but based on what I've learned to see in people I think it would be desirable. One thing is for sure, the two of us will need to both balance each other and be of one accord. Or, putting it another way, we will need to have the same values but, ideally, different skill sets. Overlapping interests would probably help, too.

The thing about values is that they underpin everything. The thing about skill sets is they help determine actually accomplishing anything.

[tcaudilllg]

If you really prefer to put it differently, to be less biting, why don't you rephrase it again so it sounds how you really want it?

The way it is now, I'm not sure your actual message is getting through all that effectively.

You should marry Ryu. Although I guess the real test is, are you going to help him with it, or are you just going to advise?

[helvetica]

Answering OP: Duality is the perfect criteria psychologically, in this particular theory/system, using generalization. (a good psychological theory/system in my opinion).

Like many people have said, it's not the only factor though. In my opinion, you should strive for a spouse that is as perfect for you in as many aspects as you can find. No one is perfect for anyone else is every way, so finding your dual just gives you a better chance of a more satisfying, easier relationship. Same with finding someone with mutual interests, similar values, intelligence, someone that can support you financially, your aspirations, your family if you want to, etc. If they're everything you've ever wanted except your dual, then that for what it is and be happy. If they are you're dual, expect that they'll be a shortcoming somewhere else in the relationship and make it work.

I'd encourage duality. I think it's a good thing to consider because your dual isn't always the type of person you're drawn to at first. They can certainly surprise you. I have a co-position with my dual this year and we work perfectly together, we talk easily, we defend each other while still motivating the other person, we make each other better people. She's becoming one of my best friends, but I don't think we would have ever talked had it not been for working together. Our family backgrounds and beliefs are completely different, but I think that by being psychologically compatible and having mutual goals and interests we're able to have such a good working and personal relationship. I think we surprised each other too, which only brought more mutual respect. Just a personal example of dual relations with other factors.

On the other hand, I'm dating an SLI. It crosses my mind a lot that I'd be happier if he was an LSE, but he still seems better for me than anyone else I've met due to other aspects. So I'll try.

Alright. That is all. I think I agree with most of you at least partially.

[chip]

http://www.aish.com/d/w/48954666.html

"When it comes to making the decision about choosing a life partner, no one wants to make a mistake. Yet, with a divorce rate of close to 50 percent, it appears that many are making serious mistakes in their approach to finding Mr./Ms. Right!

If you ask most couples who are engaged why they're getting married, they'll say: "We're in love."

I believe this is the #1 mistake people make when they date. Choosing a life partner should never be based on love. Though this may sound not politically correct, there's a profound truth here. Love is not the basis for getting married. Rather, love is the result of a good marriage. When the other ingredients are right, then the love will come.

Let me say it again: You can't build a lifetime relationship on love alone. You need a lot more. Here are five questions you must ask yourself if you're serious about finding and keeping a life partner.

QUESTION #1:

Do we share a common life purpose?

Why is this so important? Let me put it this way: If you're married for 20 or 30 years, that's a long time to live with someone. What do you plan to do with each other all that time? Travel, eat and jog together? You need to share something deeper and more meaningful. You need a common life purpose.

Two things can happen in a marriage. You can grow together, or you can grow apart. 50 percent of the people out there are growing apart. To make a marriage work, you need to know what you want out of life – bottom line - and marry someone who wants the same thing.

QUESTION #2:

Do I feel safe expressing my feelings and thoughts with this person?

This question goes to the core of the quality of your relationship. Feeling safe means you can communicate openly with this person. The basis of having good communication is trust – i.e. trust that I won't get "punished" or hurt for expressing my honest thoughts and feelings.

A colleague of mine defines an abusive person as someone with whom you feel afraid to express your thoughts and feelings.

Be honest with yourself on this one. Make sure you feel emotionally safe with the person you plan to marry.

QUESTION #3:

Is he/she a mensch?

A mensch is someone who is a refined and sensitive person. How can you test? Here are some suggestions. Do they work on personal growth on a regular basis? Are they serious about improving themselves?

A teacher of mine defines a good person as "someone who is always striving to be good and do the right thing."

So ask about your significant other: What do they do with their time? Is this person materialistic? Usually a materialistic person is not someone whose top priority is character refinement. There are essentially two types of people in the world: People who are dedicated to personal growth and people who are dedicated to seeking comfort. Someone whose goal in life is to be comfortable will put personal comfort ahead of doing the right thing. You need to know that before walking down the aisle.

QUESTION #4:

How does he/she treat other people?

The one most important thing that makes any relationship work is the ability to give. By giving, we mean the ability to give another person pleasure. Ask: Is this someone who enjoys giving pleasure to others or are they wrapped up in themselves and self-absorbed?

To measure this, think about the following: How do they treat people whom they do not have to be nice to, such as a waiter, bus boy, taxi driver, etc. How do they treat parents and siblings? Do they have gratitude and appreciation? If they don't have gratitude for the people who have given them everything, you cannot expect that they’ll have gratitude for you - who can't do nearly as much for them!

Do they gossip and speak badly about others? Someone who gossips cannot be someone who loves others. You can be sure that someone who treats others poorly, will eventually treat you poorly as well.

QUESTION #5:

Is there anything I'm hoping to change about this person after we're married?

Too many people make the mistake of marrying someone with the intention of trying to "improve" them after they're married. As a colleague of mine puts it, "You can probably expect someone to change after marriage ... for the worse!"

If you cannot fully accept this person the way they are now, then you are not ready to marry them.

In conclusion, dating doesn't have to be difficult and treacherous. The key is to try leading a little more with your head and less with your heart. It pays to be as objective as possible when you are dating, to be sure to ask questions that will help you get to the key issues. Falling in love is a great feeling, but when you wake up with a ring on your finger, you don't want to find yourself in trouble because you didn't do your homework."

After combing through this I'd say duality is relevant to question 1 and 2. As for the remaining questions that depends upon life background and experiences. an interesting read no less.

I can answer question 1 easily: I want to work hard to raise a family. To provide, protect and guide our children. If all goes well and the time is right we shift our priorities from family life to political life. I aim to find a women who has the same sense of purpose.

I have my purpose but I have not been able to make much head way in the following questions. I have to say question 3 about a mensch is interesting.

[golden]

Anyway. I think duality does make perfect sense in the Jungian view, and that Socionics is on the right track about this. The only issue I see with it, is that Socionics overstates the necessity of duality, and basically implies that you're a psychological cripple without it. Which isn't a very healthy or appropriately realistic POV at all. Taken to an extreme, it just gives license for people to be weak, unaware, and underdeveloped humans.

This is true.

I guess what I don't understand about discussions of duality in this forum is that it seems like we all sort of agree. And yet we argue about it. How many people here really think that duality is all that matters, that it's some shortcut or magic solution to a successful long-term relationship? The happiest couples I know still have their problems.

It also seems like duality only describes what a psychologically functional pairing would look like, and some other means than socionics might tell us similar things.

Anyway, duality is cool. I like it. But I also see duality as a challenge. Being in a dead-end relationship was sort of like having an excuse not to grow. Being in a relationship where growth is guaranteed and demanded ... I sometimes wonder if I'm up to it.

[1981slater]

Duality or not, marriage is a bitch. Don't do it. Be free. Love many.

[squark]

I'm arguing against the OP title - duality is a perfect criterion for marriage. And more so, the idea that all you have to do is find your dual and you are set. I that's putting way too much faith in a theoretical system. And I entirely disagree, as mentioned, that socionics is about the long term viability of relationships. Again, I think that's what a lot of people who come to the forum like to tell themselves to feel better about things, but, I think that's assuming a lot -- that your dual is mature, intelligent, attractive, has compatible family attitudes, compatible sex drive, is actually capable of understanding you in a deep way, wants to have a relationship with you, wants something long term, has enough cultural viability to gel with your culture, has enough money based on your preferences for such, and everything else.

-- you know, the kind of stuff that the email guy ought to know about you, to realize that he's not your perfect match? He's apparently too ignorant or desperate or deluded to realize what he's doing --- and he's somebody's dual. I don't think that setting him up with an EII (if that is his actual dual) is going to bring about a fulfilling relationship for them both, just because SOCIONICS IS MAGIC.

Ryu says a lot of good stuff here. And, also like Golden said, "people are messy little buggers." I agree with Ryu that duality isn't about long-term viability, that has more to do with what Mariella said, "I know very happy couples who are in non-dual relationships. They might have to work on their relationships to learn how to express appreciation and love and how to see things through their partners' eyes, but they seem to be able to do that."

Relationships are a complex of factors. Lots of people of all kinds of types can "get along" but that doesn't mean they'll be happy together, even if they're duals. Or that duals will be happier than non-duals who otherwise understand each other. To assume that we should be looking for a dual, and that's the only way to be happy, is shorting ourselves. Through each one of my attempts at a relationship, I've learned something. And the answer isn't for me to go find a dual to make everything better and easier. A dual isn't the answer. I think most people here would agree with that.

What I've learned about myself is that I'm still learning what's best for me. I keep finding out that the ideas I have in my head about what I want, are continually wrong, and I'm surprised to find that something else makes me happier. There are no hard rules, and in the end, it's how we make each other feel. Do you feel respected, trusted, loved, wanted, admired and appreciated? Do they? Do you feel all those things for them (respect, trust, desire, appreciation. . .) That's what it comes down to.

You can't force something with someone who just won't meet you in the middle, or can't, and sometimes type does have something to do with that. Just as often though it's unresolved issues that one or both of you are carrying around getting in the way. We make things more complicated than they have to be, and it's because each one of us is trying to protect ourselves. We're afraid of hurt, of rejection, of pain, of failure, of a number of other things, and it shuts us off to other people. And it's not because they're not our dual. It's because the way we choose to protect ourselves (through distrust, distance, assumptions, etc.) hurts what makes a good relationship possible.

Thing is though, if we wait until we're "perfect" and have no hangups, and outside circumstances are ideal for a relationship, we're obviously never going to be there. Imperfect people choose to be together or they choose not to. There is no ideal, perfect, never-failing person, or circumstance, or relationship, duality or not. But there are people who matter, who mean something to us, and who challenge us and make us better. Searching for perfection, whether in duality or otherwise, just means we're likely to miss some really good imperfect stuff.