problem with dual marriages

[The Reality Denialist]

Super ego stuff is generally good as long as you can take its disadvantages.

It can be bit detrimental when SEE starts delve into his/her role and you can entertain it while not really appreciating it.

[Rebelondeck]

interesting, not many people would think so. Though I must say that I have good relations with them too. Especially non matching subtype. accepting & producing.

I wrote the below article on relationship strength based on need.
http://www.socionics.com/articles/thestrength.html

a.k.a. I/O

[Olimpia]

Any system that suggests that an opposite Quadra match is "ideal" or one of the strongest ones is flawed, imo.

A "good" match isn't just about being able to cover for the other person's weaknesses, otherwise Conflictor would be the second best to one's Dual.
Which IEs are being valued does matter to a significant extent. That is also why Identity is technically better than any opposite Quadra relationship – on a closer level.

Romantic relationships require both people to "merge" with the other to an extent, something that doesn't truly happen in friendship. So while a Super Ego partner might be okay or even beneficial in a platonic or casual context, it typically becomes problematic once people attempt to get emotionally closer and more intimately connected and try to arrive at a point of agreement. There'll be blocks that cannot be overcome due to the differences in IE/Quadra values.

To address the topic of this thread: The main "problem" of Duality is the fact that the individuals need to take an extra step to take the plunge. Someone who deals with the world so differently might seem foreign at first. But the gap can more or less easily be bridged, and once that has happened Duals will find it easy to communicate and develop a place of trust and mutual understanding. People intuitively understand both their Dual and Identical, especially once they are past the (usually Role-related) pretenses or possible initial skepticism. Besides that possible hurdle in the very beginning, I'd say the problems of dual marriages will be NTR.

Your Dual values the same IEs as you, as well as has the complementary Cognitive style. Understanding and being able to reach emotional or mental intimacy seem to be mostly related to Cognition style and valued IEs (besides non-Socionics aspects). So technically, the relations with the highest potential of deeper intimacy will be: Duality, Identity, (Activity), (Mirror), (Benefit), (Supervision).

I put the latter two relations in brackets because their asymmetry and in the case of Supervision the PoLR hits will create some amount of distance, but technically those relations can arrive at deeper intimacy and connectivity because of Cognitive styles and half of the valued IEs matching up. Activity and Mirror are also in brackets because while they share the same IE values they have incompatible Cognitive styles. Super-Ego and Extinguishment have some of that kind of connectivity too because of the CS match, but the opposite IE values will create a gap that is too big for both people to ever reach "true intimacy", their understanding or intimacy will usually be surface-based. Or you both understand where the other is coming from, but cannot personally relate to them and their experience at all (because of the opposite IE values).

P.S: I'd like to add that Mirror is a tricky one, being both of the same Quadra but also having the Cognitive style of your Conflictor. The understanding of the Mirror will be on-off. That "trickiness" applies to the other types with that Cognitive style, too (aka Look-alike and Kindred).

[Adam Strange]

Any system that suggests that an opposite Quadra match is "ideal" or one of the strongest ones is flawed, imo.

A "good" match isn't just about being able to cover for the other person's weaknesses, otherwise Conflictor would be the second best to one's Dual.
Which IEs are being valued does matter to a significant extent. That is also why Identity is technically better than any opposite Quadra relationship – on a closer level.

Romantic relationships require both people to "merge" with the other to an extent, something that doesn't truly happen in friendship. So while a Super Ego partner might be okay or even beneficial in a platonic or casual context, it typically becomes problematic once people attempt to get emotionally closer and more intimately connected and try to arrive at a point of agreement. There'll be blocks that cannot be overcome due to the differences in IE/Quadra values.

To address the topic of this thread: The main "problem" of Duality is the fact that the individuals need to take an extra step to take the plunge. Someone who deals with the world so differently might seem foreign at first. But the gap can more or less easily be bridged, and once that has happened Duals will find it easy to communicate and develop a place of trust and mutual understanding. People intuitively understand both their Dual and Identical, especially once they are past the (usually Role-related) pretenses or possible initial skepticism. Besides that possible hurdle in the very beginning, I'd say the problems of dual marriages will be NTR.

Your Dual values the same IEs as you, as well as has the complementary Cognitive style. Understanding and being able to reach emotional or mental intimacy seem to be mostly related to Cognition style and valued IEs (besides non-Socionics aspects). So technically, the relations with the highest potential of deeper intimacy will be: Duality, Identity, (Activity), (Mirror), (Benefit), (Supervision).

I put the latter two relations in brackets because their asymmetry and in the case of Supervision the PoLR hits will create some amount of distance, but technically those relations can arrive at deeper intimacy and connectivity because of Cognitive styles and half of the valued IEs matching up. Activity and Mirror are also in brackets because while they share the same IE values they have incompatible Cognitive styles. Super-Ego and Extinguishment have some of that kind of connectivity too because of the CS match, but the opposite IE values will create a gap that is too big for both people to ever reach "true intimacy", their understanding or intimacy will usually be surface-based. Or you both understand where the other is coming from, but cannot personally relate to them and their experience at all (because of the opposite IE values).

This is brilliant.

It also matches exactly my real-world experiences with: Duality, Identity, (Activity), (Mirror), (Benefit), (Supervision).

[Rebelondeck]

........A "good" match isn't just about being able to cover for the other person's weaknesses, otherwise Conflictor would be the second best to one's Dual.......

Romantic relationships require both people to "merge" with the other to an extent, something that doesn't truly happen in friendship. So while a Super Ego partner might be okay or even beneficial in a platonic or casual context, it typically becomes problematic once people attempt to get emotionally closer and more intimately connected and try to arrive at a point of agreement. There'll be blocks that cannot be overcome due to the differences in IE/Quadra values........

So-called conflicting types would likely have divergent goals or ways of reaching them so the relation could never achieve second position. I took the 'perceived-need' approach because it would likely be the most stable over the long term; romance will likely wane so one would be left with basic loyalty (confidence in one another) and a working relationship. What does a 'stronger' working pair need: complementary skills and a common direction. I acknowledge that a pair with the same skill set could get by easily as would a lone individual. "Merge" is something I don't see two individuals doing but codependence (need), yes. Note that sexual attraction and activity may be common goals but the processes are separate from type - and perhaps loyalty.

a.k.a. I/O

[Olimpia]

So-called conflicting types would likely have divergent goals or ways of reaching them so the relation could never achieve second position. I took the 'perceived-need' approach because it would likely be the most stable over the long term; romance will likely wane so one would be left with basic loyalty (confidence in one another) and a working relationship. What does a 'stronger' working pair need: complementary skills and a common direction. I acknowledge that a pair with the same skill set could get by easily as would a lone individual. "Merge" is something I don't see two individuals doing but codependence (need), yes. Note that sexual attraction and activity may be common goals but the processes are separate from type - and perhaps loyalty.

a.k.a. I/O

Okay fair enough, so your system is only based on which types can help you the best when it comes to your weaknesses.

So for an arranged marriage or similar, something like Super-Ego might be okay. They help you well enough and vice versa, and there is not an expectation of deeper intimacy.

But for most people in the Western world, there is the expectation to "merge" with the partner to an extent, so that is where that system would fall short.

P.S: When I am talking of "merging", I mostly mean Interdependence, not Codependence. A Super Ego relationship would make both partners stay (emotionally) Independent.

[The Reality Denialist]

Intimacy with identity types? Type specific more or less.
Especially when intimacy refers to something internal. Just my take on it.

My experience with conflictors:
When I see ESIs in their purest element
I get reserved. It is like watching bouncy constricted Se spring.

Sometimes you can cover sometimes not. Usually it comes from frustration. This is it, good bye.

[Rebelondeck]

......P.S: When I am talking of "merging", I mostly mean Interdependence, not Codependence. A Super Ego relationship would make both partners stay (emotionally) Independent.

Interdependence is likely something one discovers after the fact. Going into a relationship, potential dependencies may be more of a detraction unless one was looking for a safety net, or a slave. Many couples stick together for very diverse reasons including a sense of duality but this doesn't mean the relationships are successful. I've been in and known people who were in superego relationships where the emotion was supercharged - the very opposite of detached independence. I maintain that connection is likely precipitated by sexual and or psychological need.....

a.k.a. I/O

[Rebelondeck]

Super-ego romantic relations was a nightmare for me. That said I have seen a number of ENTj E8s get together with ISFp E9s. This is only successful Super Ego relation I have seen.
And I would be completely shocked if an EIE and LSE ever managed to last more than a week. Likewise for an LSI and EII. Some pairings would be such a disaster they would not even make it past the first date. I managed with a LIE for 3 months. It was a bad relationship.

I had a nightmare superego relationship with someone who turned out to have a violent streak; I also had a dual relationship with a compulsive liar. However, their pasts had distorted their current behaviours so much so that type really wasn't much of a consideration. I could see the types in there because like most LII, I was able to detach and objectively analyse but the baggage obscured almost every trait. I find that many on this site mistake baggage for type-related behaviour. A tree on fire will look very different from one not.....

a.k.a. I/O

[Chae]

The problem I think is, that although duality provides functonal/practical support, when it comes to verbal communication and understanding there is a psychological gap between duals. This gives such a relationship a kind of emptiness.

In my opinion verbal communication and understanding is better between identical relations.

The question is, what does a person want more in a relationship - a person who understands them or a person who provides functional/practical support.

I beleive that people want someone who understands them rather than functional support. In additon a relationship of functional support does not fit into the western concept of a "personal relationship" IMHO, unlike a relationship of understanding. In a dual relationship, you don't feel that you are in a relationship, rather you just feel that your weaknesses are being relieved. Your dual is your subconscious shadow who does not consciously understand you.

DISCUSS

If anything, verbal communication is most complementary and healthy between duals.

Identical relations are more of an overload or stalemate, while painful areas remain uncatered to. Even beneficiaries could converse better, especially when they are extroverted types.

Duals ideally provide both, but it depends on the combination. I think what this hints at is an ST needing understanding and an NF needing practical support.

I personally have no interest in being actively understood. I deem that a very hard thing to do given how absurd my character is in the first place. That would take a 5w4 observant genius who knows me better than I know myself. Hence, it's rather my job to understand another first unconditionally. Functional support is all I require which ties to the thought of relief.

Passively understood - this is what happens, my dual has excellent analytical talent due to 4D and untangles my paradoxes. So they do understand many actions but would not really make it a priority to utter this, but I know what they're thinking once they've made a remark or two. Passive understanding is more important either way since SLI's affection () comes with action () anyway, and that action depends on analysing what is in their and my best interest which I trust to be beneficial.