EXACTLY. In a conflictor marriage, it's almost like the harder you work, the worse it gets. It's better to just ignore the other person. And who wants to have to ignore their spouse? It's a mess. Don't try this at home, people.Originally Posted by Atlast
/thread. lol
I'd like to emphasize the point that the best way to deal with your conflictor is not a good way to deal with your dual, or most other relationships really, so preparing for the worst case does not really help with the average case. If you want to get along with someone regardless of what their type is or even whether you've typed them wrong, then ignoring Socionics (and going with generic interpersonal advice that can already be found from many other sources) is probably best.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
I dont generally disagree. I see Socionics as one diode of temperament that being and thought are processed through. No matter what is processed, the difference is only degrees of the same energy.
Every relationship will have its difficulties. If you get in the habit of quitting, or "jumping ship", then you'll never learn what it takes to make a relationship work. Even duality takes effort. Jumping ship is not a good habit to get into, when the going gets tough.
Life is a roller coaster, not a merry-go-round. Worst case, you get in the habit of bailing when it's tough, and you'll drift through several marriages, constantly looking for that 'perfect person', instead of embracing that everyone has weaknesses, and sticking with something to make it work.
There are many reasons why someone would want to make a marriage work:
1) for the kids.
2) dating/searching for someone else would be a hassle/too time-consuming.
3) monetary issues, trouble splitting assets.
4) memories together/emotionally not wanting to be a mess, for possibly the next several years of your life.
5) religious beliefs, that marriage should last.
Obviously my beliefs aren't yours. Obviously not all the reasons above are important to everyone. But certainly, there is a desire by some to make a relationship work, despite realizing they're married to a conflictor, so this thread is important.
If you look at Gulenko's tips for conflictor marriages, it's not about "working harder". It's about being smart. So you also don't see value in sticking with a relationship? You are divorced, correct, redbaron? Did your marriage fail you, or did you fail your marriage?
Only one of those reasons is any good of a reason, and even that not always applies. Sometimes it is better for the kids that parents separate than have a terrible relationship in front of the kids. And terrible is a very likely scenario for conflict relationship.
Those instruction are about making the best of shitty situation and they do imply a lot of work.If you look at Gulenko's tips for conflictor marriages, it's not about "working harder". It's about being smart. So you also don't see value in sticking with a relationship? You are divorced, correct, redbaron? Did your marriage fail you, or did you fail your marriage?
I find it both funny and sad how people treat the idea of marriage.
How they confuse the ideal of a life long partnership as if it's a standard.
Back in hunter-gathering times, lives did not often last into the 80's and 90's like they do now.
Women began bearing children at younger ages than they do today, which means that they mated at younger ages than today. These mates were often in positions of life-threatening danger. The females were often at risk of dying due to complications in child-birth.
What this means is that mates were often parted far sooner than the modern "ideal" of a partnership lasting 40+ years. And new mates would be found.
Some older cultures would create limited term partnerships for the purpose of bearing and raising children. If no children sprang from the partnership after 1-2 years or so, the partnership would end and both parties would resume their previous life and/or find someone else to partner with.
Please don't neglect how this fits into evolution. I seriously doubt there is anything akin to a 'life-long marriage gene' in human dna. And any gene passing would have occurred long before the 40+ years of marriage was reached. So a prospective mate wouldn't have a clue if the other person had the genetic traits that might lead to a partnership lasting 40+ years. Nor was looking at the grand-parent's partnership helpful in making that determination, as the grand-parents were likely either long dead, or went through 1+ more mates due to deaths. And the parents have likely only been able to be together for 14-20 years. A significant difference from the ideal of a 40+ years partnership.
I also find it funny/sad that these people who confuse the ideal as a standard will bring up examples to support these ideals...forgetting that these examples are unique, not the standard.
And for those who ignore that marriage is a partnership, similar to a business partnership, I wonder if you're willing to spend the rest of your life with your business/job, forsaking all others, including hobbies.If your business/job partnership ended...does that mean you didn't try hard enough to keep it going? Or maybe it's because the partnership no longer served the purposes you had hoped it would. MtDew...within this context, I believe you have multiple partnerships going, rather than sticking with one true partnership for the course of the rest of your life. Am I right?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Right back at you.
If relationship for you is about pushing out babies, then it is unfortunate for you that you are human and not a smaller mammal who do so by a dozen yearly. Human development to adulthood is longest, and requires the most involvement. So health and productivity of parent partnership influences the health and future success (including reproductive) of the progeny. Also humans don't have many chances to do it right.
Also if you don't enjoy central parts of your life, you will run out of motivation very fast.
Also at some point you might realize that life doesn't have any other meaning than enjoyment and reaffirmation of itself.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough that my view isn't that marriage is about "pushing out babies", but about being in a "partnership".
When I'm talking of "partnership", I'm referring to "A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified goal." What that goal is can, of course, vary, depending on the persons actually involved in the partnership.
This goal may be to conceive and raise children.
Share resources.
Help each other in the pursuits/interests.
etc etc
I'm honestly not sure what the rest of your post has to do with anything I said.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Aren't you divorced also, Ann? Or am I mistaken?I find it both funny and sad how people treat the idea of marriage.
How they confuse the ideal of a life long partnership as if it's a standard.
Back in hunter-gathering times, lives did not often last into the 80's and 90's like they do now.
Women began bearing children at younger ages than they do today, which means that they mated at younger ages than today. These mates were often in positions of life-threatening danger. The females were often at risk of dying due to complications in child-birth.
What this means is that mates were often parted far sooner than the modern "ideal" of a partnership lasting 40+ years. And new mates would be found.
Some older cultures would create limited term partnerships for the purpose of bearing and raising children. If no children sprang from the partnership after 1-2 years or so, the partnership would end and both parties would resume their previous life and/or find someone else to partner with.
Please don't neglect how this fits into evolution. I seriously doubt there is anything akin to a 'life-long marriage gene' in human dna. And any gene passing would have occurred long before the 40+ years of marriage was reached. So a prospective mate wouldn't have a clue if the other person had the genetic traits that might lead to a partnership lasting 40+ years. Nor was looking at the grand-parent's partnership helpful in making that determination, as the grand-parents were likely either long dead, or went through 1+ more mates due to deaths. And the parents have likely only been able to be together for 14-20 years. A significant difference from the ideal of a 40+ years partnership.
I also find it funny/sad that these people who confuse the ideal as a standard will bring up examples to support these ideals...forgetting that these examples are unique, not the standard.
And for those who ignore that marriage is a partnership, similar to a business partnership, I wonder if you're willing to spend the rest of your life with your business/job, forsaking all others, including hobbies.
what does my marital status have to do with anything?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Are you divorced, Ann?
Are you going to answer my question? If you can't tell me something as simple as why a woman being abused doesn't have the right to seek a divorce, then perhaps you should just drop your argument.
Perhaps you will better understand a question that directly involves you. You are married to a woman for several years, then all the sudden she begins to threaten taking your life. The responsible man you are, you decide to just seek help for her, and she is put into an institution for a while. She gets out, but she is extremely furious that you would do such a thing. While you are sleeping one night, she cuts your penis off. Will you stay married to your wife?
My parents divorced when I was 5. I don't think this had anything to do with the fact that they didn't care for each other, but they were 17 and 27 when they got together and got pregnant with me. Neither of them were mature or knew what they wanted out of life, and they still don't. Would it have been to my advantage if they stayed married and raised me? I sincerely doubt that. They rushed into something without thinking it through first, and that's one of the bigger problems with relationships these days - they are rushed. People get caught up in feelings of infatuation and fail to recognize the reality of the situation before jumping into marriage.
Lets look at a couple who got married, and then five years later the husband turned out to be abusive. Should the woman just stay in the marriage, continuing to be beat around, in hopes that her husband will suddenly realize how wrong he is treating his beloved wife?
Everybody is a hypocrite. I always rant here about how society needs to be more compassionate, to the 'loser' and outcast and artist but there's this annoying emo gay boy that I talk to that always Plays Victim and talks about how other people treated him like shit. Honestly it was just draining. It sucked the life out of me. I know I should have been nice and do the right thing, but it's so easy to see how he invited that stuff in by how he was thinking, and I tried to make him see how he was a participant in his own abuse. He's really likeable when he's actually caring about other people instead of feeling sorry for himself but that thing just makes you look like this scab. I always took pride in myself that I would never go away like a stuck up preppy when other people needed my help. But he didn't really need my help he was just being clingy and annoying. And it would make me feel better about myself to picture myself as the 'hero' that says things that makes him feel better about himself but that also puts me in a position where I'm 'above' him instead of equals. Either way he gets to be some sort of victim. God he's such a sub. And yet I was so sick and tired of bad boys that were hot but also sadists. It's just I wish empathetic people were more bad-ass sometimes instead of sitting there drooling and feeling sorry for themselves.Either you use same words differently in the same sentence, or you are hilariously hypocritical.
Morality is about criticizing thoughts and punishing behaviors that you consider immoral.
Likewise, there are people that always are rude and sociopathic and say how people are 'all fags' and not tough. but if you catch them off guard you will notice they get sensitive about stuff. In the end I believe Maritsa is just playing a role, and her 'Nice INFj girl card' is something that will only keep her stuck.
I believe there are certain circumstances in which a divorce could be understood. Abuse, in my eyes, is not tolerable.
However, I stand by my viewpoint, that people should generally, (of course there are exceptions), work harder to make a marriage work. I am not a quitter. I personally do not take 'until death do you part' lightly, although it seems other people may not take promises/commitments seriously.
I do, apologize, in perhaps directing this question at redbaron and Ann. In retrospect, I think this should be generally (of course there are exceptions) directed towards the man in the relationship. Generally, men, in my opinion, should be the leaders in the relationship. Generally, I think men have greater control over the success of the relationship - providing for the woman financially, fulfilling her wants/desires, making her feel protected, serving her, etc.
I do believe today's society generally has guys who are not real men, thinking for the short-term. Men who want to drink beer, play video games, impregnate girls then abandon them, live for the short-term, without any long-term commitments.
I asked Ann if she was divorced, as that biases her viewpoint, why she was arguing that it's not normal for a long-term relationship, without any evidence that some of our ancestors don't stay with a mate long-term, and helped raise the children, ensuring their survival.
To tie this back to the original point of this thread, for the people who don't try to make marriage work, God knows I don't understand what they think when they recite their marriage vows, then yes, perhaps this thread is of no use to you. But for the people who believe they want to make a marriage work, I thought a guide would prove useful. Nowisthetime provided a very useful link earlier on the 1st page, so that's all I was looking for.
If I offended you in any of my viewpoints in this post, I generally, (of course there are exceptions) am not sorry.
So, according to you,
If I was divorced, that would mean that my viewpoint was biased. (but, since I have never divorced, your claim of divorce biassing me has no grounds to stand on.)
Which leave us with the following questions:
If I was married, how would that change my supposed biasness?
If I had never been married, how would that change my supposed biasness?
If I had never been married, nor been in a longish term relationship, how would that change my supposed biasness?
If I had never been married but was in a longish term relationship, how would that change my supposed biasness?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
LSI...
'It's not my fault I quit my marriage. Humans weren't designed to last in long-term relationships.'
*successful marriage*: 'Marriage can be hard work sometimes, but you can overcome any problem/disagreement.'
*unsuccessful marriage*: 'Be careful who you marry, because you may not be compatible long-term, and may end up miserable.'
'Duality is awesome! Only duals have a chance in marriage, I just haven't found the right one yet.'
You wouldn't understand the commitment needed to make any relationship work, duality or conflictor.
'Why would you want to make a marriage work? I don't see why anyone would want to stay with someone they don't get along with.'
*the above are generalizations and do not apply in all cases*
Last edited by Snaps; 03-16-2012 at 08:14 PM. Reason: Answering the questions
MtDew,
roflmao
You might want to work on those, they show that you've little experience with relationships, despite having numerous ideals. Particularly the ones that show a thinking in terms of duals and conflictors, rather than of the relationship between the two people involved.
This in particular was hilarious:
Are you really suggesting that if I were in a long term relationship, but not married, that it would mean that I'm biased towards not wanting to make the partnership work?'Why would you want to make a marriage work? I don't see why anyone would want to stay with someone they don't get along with.'
Did you even read what you wrote??
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
No. Generally, I find people who date feel more freedom when choosing their girlfriends/boyfriends, and don't understand the commitment to marriage as much as people who are married.
we're not talking about casual dating here, we're talking about a long term relationship.
In particular, mine, been with him for 8 years, lived with him for 3 months shy of that.
And this somehow means that I lack understanding of commitment?
While you, longest relationship of 9 months thinks he understands what it's like to be in a long term relationship??
You do realize that in this case, YOU are the "people who date" in your description,
while I am closer to the "people who are married" part of your description.
And before you say "yeah, but you're not actually MARRIED",
Just because we haven't gone to the state office and requested a ceremony doesn't mean we aren't committed to each other.
Which means according to your own description, YOU don't understand the experiences nor commitments actual married/committed people deal with.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Dew, how long was your longest relationship?
Have you ever been engaged?
Are your parents still married?
9 months, no, and no.
Also, when you observe good relationships around you, based on mutual understanding you are more likely to have similar relationship yourself.
My parents are conflictors, the relationship is TERRIBLE in every possible aspect.
Not suprisingly, me and my sister ended in a very difficult relationships for us. It took a lot of time for me and some luck as well to build my self esteem and stop behaving like a martyr but look for happiness in a relationship.
What does making it work even mean? My dual and I separated after six years because we had different plans in life (he wanted to settle down and have a family in one place and I wanted to get a Ph.D. in a different place). We could have "made it work," but one would have felt cheated. In my current 5-year super-ego relationship, things might not be as smooth as with the dual, but we have similar plans in life (he understands and accepts that I am not as flexible career-wise as he is and agrees to follow me around), so we "make it work" on that level.
"Making it work" depends on so much more than types or the combination of types.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
I am glad Ann brought up that entire tangent about relationships. It is extremely crucial to understand. It is even more crucial to understand the viewpoints of those that have been through it or are in it, whether or not one agrees with said viewpoints.
oh goodness.... I'm chuckling at this point. I'm not going into the details of my situation. You're lacking a lot of information on which your judgment rests. Nobody knows what goes on in a marriage other than the two people who are a part of it. I don't need to defend myself.
As someone pointed out, there are many many equally or even more important factors than type, in a relationship. In no way was I implying that only duality can work, or some crap like that. I was simply advising you all who haven't been through it yet, not to take a chance on marrying your conflictor. Do you really want to start a relationship with that against you? Seems unwise.
Something else that you might want to think about MD: I think your strong commitment to the institution of marriage is a good thing. But empathy for others is also valuable and it's usually best to give another person the benefit of the doubt before you judge their decisions. I'm not offended, you're young and only speaking what you believe. It's okay.
Reply With Quote
