Relations of Duality: Scrutinisingly painful observations unoticable at first

[chip]

I've done some digging and I'm noticing objectively what feels like the first time the subtle indicators that mark very strong statement as written within the duality description from socionics.com

"These relations are the most favourable and comfortable of all intertype relations providing complete psychological compatibility." - there you have it folks, the two words that stand out are MOST and All. why? Duality relations are the most favourable and comfortable of ALL intertype reltaions. That is a mammoth statement when you really consider that there is sixteen intertype relations. I interpret most favourable to mean successful and comfortable to mean solid.

"They usually understand each others intentions without any need to say a word." I have to emphasize USUALLY, well what does he mean by usually understand each others intentions? Not always or definitely for sure. They can misunderstand each other's intention or sometimes they need to explicity state what they intend. Another matter of interest is a person needs to have a clear intention in order for anyone else to pick up on what they intend. So when one dual partner does not have strong intentions the other partner can not understand. I mean to say there is shades of gray to intentionality. As a rule of thumb the more intent you are the more likely your intention will be understood and the truth is the same for the opposite.

"Conflicts between Duals are very rare and if there are any, they are normally short lived and solved without pain." Maybe its just me but conflict resolution with your dual in theory seems contrary to personal experience. I suppose you could say I've had those very rare experiences.

"Your Dual partner will love you just for what you are and if there is such a thing as true love then it could probably only occur in relations of Duality." - as for the part about 'love you just for what you are' there is alot of things he is not saying. Also notice PROBABLY. That is a tricky word as probably does not mean the same as certainly. Actually the statement sounds a bit weak. There is a 70% probability of rain tomorrow - that does not mean that it is going to rain tomorrow but casts doubt that it is going to be clear. To interpret that another way. If one dual partner is uncertain they want to be with another dual partner than they probably will not be together. Basically he is saying there is a good chance - its a risk, not a guanrantee!

"In fact, younger people have more chance to succeed in the quest for their perfect partner than older people. But the chances are always there." He makes it abdundantly clear that he is talking about CHANCE. Duality is a gamble.

"There are at least two conditions to be completed for a successful relationship between Duals." Did he say conditional? as a matter of interpretation isn't true love suppose to be unconditional? the description is flawed!

"Firstly between the partners there has to be at least a minimal mutual attraction." - true.

"Secondly and most importantly is that the partners are truly striving for the same or similar things. This may include common interests and/or life goals. Partners that are both seriously thinking about building a family are a good example." hmmm these days people are beginning their careers and families later in life when they are not so young which diminishes your chances of finding the perfect partner.

"If relations crumble it normally happens in the first stage." - true. I'm not sure what the stages are and its stupid to mention that they're several stages without actually mentioning what thoes stages really entail. Tease.

"The more stages completed by Duals the more unbreakable their relationship." - I hope so.

"Usually during first contact extroverts think about their introvert Dual as ordinary and simple, therefore not deserving their personal attention." - there is confirmation bias happening on this forum because of this statement. He does say USUALLY during first contact, again, not always, only sometimes, and if any, the first time you meet.

"The magnetic effect of Duality becomes obvious when partners do not see each other for a while." - incredibly true.

"Only after being together for a fair amount of time do the partners start realising how much they need each other." - maybe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuq7RYQ8Wa0

here is a great song. irrelevant to the theory of socionics but seems to fit fine.

"Finally, these relations are most suitable for friendship, marriage and family life." - I have to admit the only time I've ever seriously considered marriage is with a dual but that is personal.

[chip]

damit the song didn't post. oh well. As a final thought, when you look at the earlier work of DarkAngelFireWolf69, makes me wonder if he's now spending the rest of his later work trying to account for the many but minor imperfections that have such a disparaging affect on people who like socionics because its unlike any other theory but unlike any other theory offers no more certainty. To interpret it this way its almost like saying DCNH theory is meant to account for those minor imperfections in duality and socionics.

[pianosinger]

THANK YOU!

[EyeSeeCold]

I think the problem is taking any description as 100% consistently true & applicable. This isn't exactly an exact science... yet.

[chip]

Well the ability to read and interpret the right meaning of a written text takes skill and critical thinking. The website tries to distinguish itself as the "new psychology", and makes quick work to point out that the socionic appreviations for a certain type is more than just a star sign. Unfortunately socionics has been interpreted too literally like it has become the 'new religion' instead. If you know your history there as been some extrodinarily original and yet completely unrealistic theories - when I read ancient philosophy there is a number of challenging theories presented that only in time have been deemed a reflection of the times.

I do not take the description as 100% consistently true and applicable. Throw out a ball park figure. The description is 75% true??? a completely arbitrary figure. Regardless when interpreting socionics in the correct way which feels like the first time even though I have been familiar with it for years - there goes my pride - I realise a startling new discovery. Probability and chance - that is the underlining basis for socionics which gives rise to the thought of entertaining similiar uses of probability and chance.

There is a greater chance of success within duality than all the other intertype relations. That makes me wonder about chance in terms of flipping a coin - there is a 50/50 chance of heads or tails. Perhaps that's all there is to duality in a psychological objective stance. Hypothetically if you had two dual partners strike a conversation and start a relationship there is a 50/50 chance of success but again an arbitrary figure but that makes me wonder and alittle more hopfully and alittle less disillusioned by the notion of 100% consistency - like in reality if things didn't work out with your dual well that was bad luck - nothing more. The odds, whatever they may be, were in your favour.

Put it this way - if you meet and try to date or have a relationship with your dual well if you strike out 10 times with 10 different partners then maybe the 11th will be the lucky one. This is purely for entertainment purposes - do not take this literally even if coincidentally its true.

The odds of success and living a happy life with your dual is 1 out of 25. that is for every 25 duals you meet there is one partner who is perfect for you.
The odds of success and living a happy life with your identical is 1 out of 50. That is for every 50 identicals you meet there is one partner who is perfect for you.
The odds of success and living a happy life with your activity is 1 out of 75. that is for every 75 activity you meet there is one partner who is perfect for you.
the odds of success and living a happy life with your mirror is 1 out of 100. that is for every 100 mirror you meet there is one partner who is perfect for you.

Perhaps what has yet to be considered when they originally did statistics showing certain psychological types are more compatible and better suited for intimate relations is how many dual partners did they meet before finally settling down with just one? I think that's interesting.

The whacky aspect to probability is if you and your dual are alive there is a chance even if they're married and living half way round the world, 1 in a billion (again arbitrary), but the chance is always there. I feel less insane for acting on chance and probability than I did before.

[Jarno]

I interpret most favourable to mean successful and comfortable to mean solid.

no comfortable just means comfortable. You know, you feel relaxt with eachother. No tension, everything at ease.

The description is quite basic, but yet decent enough.

I've read russian descriptions that go into more detail.

Even the right curse words in the conflict relationship, 'Evil' and 'Egoist'.

I used to call my ex (my conflictor) a devils child and she called me egoist.

How perfect can a description get :-)

[Timeless]

Well the ability to read and interpret the right meaning of a written text takes skill and critical thinking. The website tries to distinguish itself as the "new psychology", and makes quick work to point out that the socionic appreviations for a certain type is more than just a star sign. Unfortunately socionics has been interpreted too literally like it has become the 'new religion' instead. If you know your history there as been some extrodinarily original and yet completely unrealistic theories - when I read ancient philosophy there is a number of challenging theories presented that only in time have been deemed a reflection of the times.

I do not take the description as 100% consistently true and applicable. Throw out a ball park figure. The description is 75% true??? a completely arbitrary figure. Regardless when interpreting socionics in the correct way which feels like the first time even though I have been familiar with it for years - there goes my pride - I realise a startling new discovery. Probability and chance - that is the underlining basis for socionics which gives rise to the thought of entertaining similiar uses of probability and chance.

There is a greater chance of success within duality than all the other intertype relations. That makes me wonder about chance in terms of flipping a coin - there is a 50/50 chance of heads or tails. Perhaps that's all there is to duality in a psychological objective stance. Hypothetically if you had two dual partners strike a conversation and start a relationship there is a 50/50 chance of success but again an arbitrary figure but that makes me wonder and alittle more hopfully and alittle less disillusioned by the notion of 100% consistency - like in reality if things didn't work out with your dual well that was bad luck - nothing more. The odds, whatever they may be, were in your favour.

Put it this way - if you meet and try to date or have a relationship with your dual well if you strike out 10 times with 10 different partners then maybe the 11th will be the lucky one. This is purely for entertainment purposes - do not take this literally even if coincidentally its true.

The odds of success and living a happy life with your dual is 1 out of 25. that is for every 25 duals you meet there is one partner who is perfect for you.
The odds of success and living a happy life with your identical is 1 out of 50. That is for every 50 identicals you meet there is one partner who is perfect for you.
The odds of success and living a happy life with your activity is 1 out of 75. that is for every 75 activity you meet there is one partner who is perfect for you.
the odds of success and living a happy life with your mirror is 1 out of 100. that is for every 100 mirror you meet there is one partner who is perfect for you.

Perhaps what has yet to be considered when they originally did statistics showing certain psychological types are more compatible and better suited for intimate relations is how many dual partners did they meet before finally settling down with just one? I think that's interesting.

The whacky aspect to probability is if you and your dual are alive there is a chance even if they're married and living half way round the world, 1 in a billion (again arbitrary), but the chance is always there. I feel less insane for acting on chance and probability than I did before.

That's my LII/INTj's friend favorite word too, "probability." You damn INTj.

Seriously though, let's not forget there are healthy ESE/ESFj's and unhealthy ESE/ESFj's. Healthy LII/INTj's and unhealthy LII/INTj's etc. So those numbers while obviously not statistically accurate, they have a good point; not all duals/activators will be right for you, but there is a high likelihood that they will be compared to the rest of the intertype relations.

On a somewhat related note, for the fun of it, yesterday I decided to play a game with my friend and guess people's temperaments (EP, IP, EJ, IJ) right off the bat in the open public on a busy area. Almost like people watching. Personally, I think it's about 80% accurate and easy to spot, but after I saw two IPs that stood out a mile away—I had to find out what they were:

SEI/ISFp & SLI/ISTp.

[chip]

I suppose I meant to bring a new perspective to what seems like an old description. Yes your right in regard to health and an unfortunate aspect to unhealthiness is you like the person but you dislike their unhealthy habits.

"So those numbers while obviously not statistically accurate, they have a good point; not all duals/activators will be right for you, but there is a high likelihood that they will be compared to the rest of the intertype relations." You got it!

[Marie84]

I don't think the description is true or false, rather it just sounds like an idealized example of duality, that is duality in the best case scenario
I'm sure there are lots of cases of duality just being neutral and others down right off putting due to outside Socionics clashing factors

[pianosinger]

It would drive me crazy to live with my Dual father-in-law. In fact, I did live in the same house with him for over a year. He definitely has some habits that bugged me. Like eating ice cream straight out of the container. And turning the heat up way too high because it was comfortable for him (wearing a sweatshirt even), but I was sweating in short sleeves. And he's a hoarder.

[chip]

Well suppose you had discovered a new psychological theory that predicts people's behaviour based on their socion. What is a better strategy to make the theory spark interest in the public and academic community? Do you tell it like it is or do what DarkAngelFireWolf69 has done and make it sound more appealing than it really is?

hmmm is true and false compatible with chance? I mean true and false is an analytical judgement inwhich a conclusion is drawn and a determination made. When you have a roll of the dice your lucky or unlucky, you can not determine why the dice fell the way they did and you can especially not pre-determine the way the dice will roll with the exception of fixed dice.
The description says duality is based on chance but there is a few statements that seem to have a truth value - and here I mean the statement is true because that is acceptable with experience.

I can not add anything new. The point has already been made.

[Jarno]

Duality ranges from 'nice' to 'wow the best thing ever happened in my life'.

[EyeSeeCold]

Well suppose you had discovered a new psychological theory that predicts people's behaviour based on their socion. What is a better strategy to make the theory spark interest in the public and academic community? Do you tell it like it is or do what DarkAngelFireWolf69 has done and make it sound more appealing than it really is?

hmmm is true and false compatible with chance? I mean true and false is an analytical judgement inwhich a conclusion is drawn and a determination made. When you have a roll of the dice your lucky or unlucky, you can not determine why the dice fell the way they did and you can especially not pre-determine the way the dice will roll with the exception of fixed dice.
The description says duality is based on chance but there is a few statements that seem to have a truth value - and here I mean the statement is true because that is acceptable with experience.

I can not add anything new. The point has already been made.

Wow, I truly never saw it this way. I completely took Socionics theory as something innocent. I mean I knew there was no magic involved but I didn't stop to think how much the developers were falsifying things. Even if they didn't, and if they did not to a large extent, still there's the possibility.

[Jarno]

Wow, I truly never saw it this way. I completely took Socionics theory as something innocent. I mean I knew there was no magic involved but I didn't stop to think how much the developers were falsifying things. Even if they didn't, and if they did not to a large extent, still there's the possibility.

nah, they would've been uncovered by others.

Socionics is easy to experience yourself, so you can't trick people with it. They'll find out.

[chip]

@ Jarno sure but I would not place absolute faith in socionics. I'm not suggesting you have been decieved but only addressing that the system is imperfect and requires critical thought at some point to question the 'truth' of what you know. There is such a thing as placing over-competence in a system of pyschological types.

I have to agree as an impression "Duality ranges from 'nice' to 'wow the best thing ever happened in my life'." is fairly accurate.

[Diaphanous]

Socionics is easy to experience yourself, so you can't trick people with it. They'll find out.

What exactly do you mean by "trick?"

Do you think that once someone knows about socionics and observes its accuracies, they eventually have to accept it as legitimate, at least to a degree?