I just want to say going back and forth over some "transactional language" when talking about the relationships is kind of....idk....silly? What he said didn't even seem that crazy. EVERYBODY gets SOMETHING out of a relationship. EVERYBODY EXPECTS something out of a relationship. And I highly doubt that the "language" is representative of how someone actually acts in the relationship, it's just easier to talk in bullet points sometimes. I also highly doubt the guy is out there making arrangements for sex with someone like a client does a prostitute, in a relationship. Who knows how someone acts in a relationship based off their "transactional language."
And she BETTER be a good mom!
Last edited by Lord Pixel; 08-19-2019 at 01:41 AM.
The fact that you ppl see this as unimportant doesn't mean its unhealthy and potentially damaging (sabotage) for interpersonal relationships. But maybe these articles explain it better than me.
Well I think the point is not that you never get anything out of it or that you should always be sacrificing yourself, etc.
But an important aspect of relationships is transformation and personal growth. There are moments in relationships where you would be saying "I should do this for the sake of X". And the "X" could be based on your personal or relational values. Making decisions based on that would mean that you're not just "getting something out of" the other person or thinking "What am I going to get in return if I do this?". Do you benefit from it? Yes, possibly, but you're not exactly expecting anything from the other person.
Basically I think thinking of relationships in terms of "transactions" is to bypass having to have those values.
I think the word choice is being way too read into. Of course people make compromise and sacrifice in relations for the benefit of the person they are with. Does this really have to be stated? But God forbid someone has standards and wants someone to be a good parent and other positive traits. And I highly doubt there is a human on earth who enters into a relationship with no expectations. That's not real. You go into a relationship expecting not to be intentionally hurt, expecting some kind of physical or emotional closeness, expecting kids or no kids, expecting whatever it is you are expecting. Better to be upfront than to fake like you're above it all.
Last edited by Lord Pixel; 08-19-2019 at 09:58 AM.
Another thing is that if you think "What am I going to get in return?", then there's no guarantee that you'll get anything in return - it's uncertain. Some people try to resolve this uncertainty by adding probabilities, like "there's 30% chance of success, or there's 60% chance of success". But reality doesn't work in term of probabilities - it's either a success or it isn't. So it's just a kind of a trick to make you decide into a certain action.
So I don't necessarily think that "What am I going to get in return?" is even the fundamental reason for why people act. I don't exactly know what the fundamental reason is, but I'd suspect that it's more than that.
I'm not saying that people are 100% selfish or 100% altruistic all the time.
Just FYI - I never think that thought. I.e. consciously I don't.
But ofc, your beloved evolution theory says that your genes want to benefit. No altruism, just selfish benefits lol.
I want to add that even if the feelings are underdeveloped, your morality is determined by rationality pretty well. It does not even have to be selfish.
And you can learn to trust feelings a bit better, sometimes it's useful...
Duality isn't an indicator of romantic success because emotion isn't truly one of its components even though different types will cognitively deal with emotion in very different ways. Duality holds the highest probability for peace and mutual cooperation during long periods of domesticity; people with egos that don't clash make the more sustainable, working relationships. Love, physical attraction and libido are separate and distinct so one shouldn't try to mix business with pleasure - it obscures the analysis......
a.k.a. I/O
lately I've been reading many different sources about love, from sociology, psycho-analysis, philosophy, as well as direct experience... the theory of socionics duality is never touched, not even from afar. the idea behind falling in love is transformation. when we fall in love we're ready to change, transform ourself into something better, possibly overcome our flaws... and not just be ourselves and wait that someone magically accept it all because they're our dualz. which is extremely immature and delusional.
the idea behind dualization is extremely counter-productive if we use it as a tool for love, it's really the opposite of what love requires. on the other hand, the idea of "dualization", which is commonly used in the psycho circles to describe the split of an individual in 2 is exactly what love is about: transformation, leaving an old part of our self behind and change for the sake of the person next to us. to do so, the person next to us must be, first and foremost, an inspirer, not a dual.
That to me seems ungrounded, unrealistic, magical expectations. (Not a personal attack, read on for the real point.) And actually, people do go back to their usual self once they go back to the usual days of living from the honeymoon period.
Actually to me this is the one that's not magical, bc to me it's more realistic to just accept someone as is. I don't see anything immature about that. To me wanting to change the other person is what's immature.and not just be ourselves and wait that someone magically accept it all because they're our dualz. which is extremely immature and delusional.
But then this whole difference in our opinions here makes me think of Mars vs Venus books.
Mars: accepts the other person as is - this approach is more often the man's supposedly. Men (at least stereotypically masculine men) supposedly take action in the external world/change the external world, not themselves.
Venus: wants to change the other person - this approach is more often the woman's supposedly. Women (at least stereotypically feminine women) supposedly approach their internals more easily, and change themselves rather than the external world.
If you wanna link it with socionics... feelings are internal stuff (your Fi/Fe/whatever), objectivity about material stuff (your Ti/Te/whatever) in the world is the external stuff
I have considered that many marriages fall apart because of this difference coming out and remaining unmanaged, after the honeymoon... Suppose a focus on all the emotionz in the honeymoon is pretty easy and then afterwards a lot of other things will too easily be in foreground instead, actually for the stereotypical women too, not just for the stereotypical men. And then stress over all the other stuff won't help ....
It's mentioned in several psychology sources but with a more realistic take than Socionics's.the theory of socionics duality is never touched, not even from afar
Here's an article. https://www.apa.org/monitor/mar04/mixing
Last edited by Myst; 08-29-2019 at 01:43 PM.
@Myst I guess truth is in the middle, on one hand yes, in love, we need someone to accept us for what we are, on the other this need is accompanied by a desire to transcend ourself and our flaws. it's not that a socionic dual is bad, I was exaggerating for the sake of switching perspective, yet it's not the real requirement for a completeness of the self, which is the ultimate goal. we need someone that stimulates us to be complete -alone- so that in 2 we become sort of invincible, or smth like that.
we already contain a dual inside of us, the goal is to bring this inner reality into a shape, and a socionic dual could as well be detrimental to this self-betterment process.
I agree that some compromise is needed in relationships but it can only be based on acceptance first... Btw the article I linked actually shows the bad side of the duality stuff It just does not use a Socionics framework.
I'll add to the above post... So I said:
I have considered that many marriages fall apart because of this difference coming out and remaining unmanaged, after the honeymoon... Suppose a focus on all the emotionz in the honeymoon is pretty easy and then afterwards a lot of other things will too easily be in foreground instead, actually for the stereotypical women too, not just for the stereotypical men. And then stress over all the other stuff in daily life won't help .... The stereotypical woman then wants extra emotional support beyond what's realistic, from the stereotypical man and she gets negative when she doesn't receive all this extra emotional support, while the stereotypical man will neglect the emotionz/relationship even more, to an extreme degree, by focusing on the work, hobbies, and especially gets distant after the stereotypical woman got negative. And she gets even more negative and he gets even more distant. And so on .......... At the other extreme, when the stress gets too much, they then switch strategy to an even more unhealthy one. She gets cold and distant, he gets overemotional. Think divorce time lol, that's when it'll especially happen.
So much for the dualising idea eh?
Though, the articles I read, such as the one above, or any other books I read about the duality of men/women, do mention there is a more healthy approach yes, if we understand ourselves, our undeveloped sides and each other's differences blah blah blah.
Tho' some do not advocate to develop the undeveloped side too much or too actively. Understanding it and each other still is needed tho'. This is an interesting topic...
I thought dual was like... you get to most be like yourself naturally around the other person w/o having to be somebody else. That won't necessarily turn into 'omg I really love you!!!' romantic feelings, but... seems like a good enough breeding ground for them.
I think this is problematic as well, I've said this before but if you get to be too much like yourself- you're not challenged enough, and often the introverted dual will get stuck inside a period of unhealthy complacency. So there is a dark side to duality. The theory itself even says not to idealize them. But idk we are only human and humans idealize. =p
^ My LSI ex-GF once told me that all she ever wanted was for her father to tell her that he loved her....
@Adam Strange I'm not sure if you read my last addition to my post, please re-read just to be sure
@Myst, This deserves closer examination. Let me do that and get back to you.
@Myst, really good article, thx, lately I like to read real studies conducted on relationship, socionics is an inspiring hypothesis in and on itself, but often too idealistic and programmatic to apply in human messy reality.
btw, interesting because I was thinking of smth similar to the story you've pictured, say you meet someone and in 2 you decide to pursue a bright future filled with your personal potential and dreams, this is the honeymoon stage of a relationship and a fundamental one because of our need to dream and look ahead for better things. well, at this stage the ideas are so strong and look so real that we try hard to follow them and make them real. then the years pass and other things accumulate and we are fulfilling our dreams somehow, but not as we expected, and we are tired and half disillusioned and the person next to us is as tired and disillusioned as we are and so we look back at the person we were, with a sense of nostalgia and wish to change everything and often we hold our partner responsible for our conditions, and regret what we have become because of them. what I mean is that we "married" our dreams, our expectations, that sense of becoming something else... and if these things don't happen, but even if they happen and routine kills us, if the destiny is unfavorable, we start regretting our past decisions, our dreams, we feel betrayed.
these things can happen even with a dual, it's a universal story that repeats in every love relationship, and it's up to us to handle it in a way or all the possible others; to keep dreaming and building or giving up for something else.
what I mean is that our dreams are more real than what we think, because they're a fuel that keeps us going. what I mean is that it's not necessarily up to a perfectly compatible partner to make our dreams come true, it's more up to our own self. ultimately, to have a perfectly compatible partner is a work in progress, and the moment the magic alchemical work happens, well, it's over, there's nothing left to be reached... while a work in progress is exactly that, a journey that keeps us dreaming.
Jung for instance didn't consider our shadow (the super ID in socion) as necessarily good, it's only good once we accept ourselves, once we're ready to go beyond, otherwise the shadow is a source of great fears and unconscious hate, like your article says, because we still don't have the tools to handle it.
more and more I'm liking the idea that it's the goal of a couple to become dualized, from an initial position where they're not, and it's probably why we see many winning couples as duals, because they've learnt, or better, they're learning, to become one. but this implies that we're ever changing and not the fixed things that socionics says we are...
*rumbles*
it's more about base N types alike your IEI
other types, especially S ones, if will be significantly going by that "fuel" will dislike that due to coming to not so good outcomes
usage of N needs a training. for S types it's much about trance states
for example, I recently had signes about meeting one human. I wanted that to happen. but I did not felt the meeting and had no dreams how that happens. the only close feeling what I had - is general impression to be calm, do not force events and all will be good by its own ways. my N worked to orginise the meeting and that have happened after < 1 week after the signes. by Tarot I saw this possibility also monthes before that. but it was not directly by N dreams. as N is my unconscious region and to get correct visions I'd need trances. while for N types it's normal mind states - to live by clear dreams what gives them a use. it's not "just dreams" for them, what it is so mostly for S types without special preparations, states and methods
My husband says “no it can’t be done”
I say “sure let’s find a way”
Duality
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Wow @Sol, your trances are pretty complex. Idk if I ever had one that really predicted anything lol
I meant a prey mb used for anything, including intentional geting of info and time predictions. As general possibility, not my experience. I did not used this for predictions still, mb as related to Ni is not among my prefered interests.
I had several times a feeling of unification, but there I asked about events or solving of tasks - it worked then. Also had it in common prey without concrete asking. The 2nd variant mb better as your unconsciousness may see more general situation and help you in what is more important. In Mahometanism to ask about concrete thing is not endorsed, for example.
I remember a single case when I got a muddy vision about possible future, but it was not in a prey. I worked by an imagination in a trance, though a prey could be used before to help enter in the needed state. During that accidentally I've got a vision. I tried to influence on IEI girl, to remove some things to allow her to make decisions more by her own. As she has Ni as base function this could to have such effect on me, as to influence on other human you join your mind with his one. I did not know about Jung types and her type, that she has base Ni to which relates time feeling - I was not preconvinced about that.
I met somewhere, Nostradamus used religious technics to get a feeling of unification with God for his predictions. Judaism and his mystic branches being monotheism should to know about this mind state.
I do not exclude that other religions or mystic studies (or atheistic technics which may suppose "just an imagination to deal with the mind") may to have the similar by the efficiency states inspired by own traditions and other technics. What a human feels in this state mb rather secondary and surface to what happens. If you believe in "magic elf" which may to help you, and then concentrate with the ask on elf's image - mb you may get the same. I did not tried. I understand that human mind uses models to deal with the reality and hence what human perceives is secondary and such mb not obligate completely or in parts which look as important.
The simplisitc approach to religion is to simplify them to rituals. While religions itself often say that people "know nothing" There is no reason behind what rituals do, rituals are not the religion itself and what we think about religion is not that. We may do something to get something. It's a black box. We see a surface of that box, may know what to give to one end and what then to expect from other end. Not more. When someone absolutize religions - it's a simplification, to remove doubts and so easier to use known black boxes, this helps to use them - but it's not the Truth, it's models. When children study something they should not doubt in a teacher to accept his knowledge easier - it's the same. But teacher is not absolute and the concrete models are not absolute. There could be many forgotten religions or studies with similar efficiency in the past and may appear in the future. Monotheism itself has several branches with significant differences in rituals and stories and traditions near it - but it's same in its essence - people prey to something similar and may get the similar results. Those people may make even wars to argue for some traditions and stories are the only regiligious Truth, but that wars have a minor relation to the religion - those are more political and other social competing.
Most probably you may be atheist and do the same and feel the same as "saints". You'll just use another black box and will be understanding that as a "black box" without adding of sacred understanding to that. Alike chemistry or electricity practice mb explained without any magic, but mb also with "elfs" [for kids] - with the same results.
I think the contrary. Sure the dual picks up the areas that are hard for you, but being around the dual also teaches you how to handle those parts of life, so that when they are not around and you have to pick up that load yourself you just emulate what they've done. A dual becomes a reference point for you subconscious to emulate, They essentially help refine your subconscious.
IME at least I notice even before I knew socionics that I emulate some dual behavior when put in a situation where I have to lead or be assertive, it is a more cardboard cut out/caricatured version but at least I have some way of showing up to those challenges, without that vague idea to emulate I'd probably be too overwhelmed to act.
(Note: I'm not talking about socionics duality. More in general than that about undeveloped areas of weaknesses/developed areas of strengths)
Doesn't bc you just don't pay conscious attention unless you already know where you need to do that
As for subconsciously picking it up - you do pick up some but not all that much since they take care of mostof it themselves right?
Errrr noooo lolso that when they are not around and you have to pick up that load yourself you just emulate what they've done.
Only if you pay conscious attention painstakingly and even then it's not gonna be an emulation... it's gonna be just you learning more to handle it with your normal approaches, besides picking up some basics here and thereA dual becomes a reference point for you subconscious to emulate, They essentially help refine your subconscious.
It's good to have understanding of those things so you can navigate stuff better with your normal approaches but trying to emulate directly is going to backfire most likelyIME at least I notice even before I knew socionics that I emulate some dual behavior when put in a situation where I have to lead or be assertive, it is a more cardboard cut out/caricatured version but at least I have some way of showing up to those challenges, without that vague idea to emulate I'd probably be too overwhelmed to act.
So all in all:
1. Know yourself, what you can do, and what you can't and shouldn't force yourself to try to do
2. Know other people too and interpersonal dynamics with them vs you, too
3. Do focus on the undeveloped parts a bit too to integrate that sort of stuff into your conscious understanding so you will do what you can do even better
4. For that a "dual" (not Socionics dual) works to show more on that stuff but only if you already try to develop your stuff consciously, also other approaches of self-development work, therapy, other approaches, just in general talking to / working with other people by being overall well integrated in society, etc.
Last edited by Myst; 08-29-2019 at 08:59 PM.
Nah, I think dual or anybody with strengths in your weaknesses give you examples on how to be better at those weak areas. I think a dual does it more in a way that you can actually understand and consciously practice, not to the same degree of course. And they operate in your suggestive areas after all.
To use the dimensions as an example, with PoLRs and suggestive you have a one dimensional view of it but other types help you get a more multi-dimensional view of those areas. But coming from other types it's harder to understand while from dual or activity it's easier to practice.
I'm only aware of the subconscious affect other types have had on me because I know typology, but even other types have subconsciously affected my use in the PoLR, suggestive and mobilizing, dual or not, but dual advice actually slides into my mind (and affirms subconscious thoughts) while other's advice have to get past more psychological obstacles. Most of the time when I use my weaker functions I'm copying some subconscious example when doing so even if it's not a real person and just a youtube video or TV. It's like my subconscious is scraping for any data I have that will benefit my situation without discrimination if it's real or fictional. And sometimes these emulations are so subconscious I don't know where they came from until I think about it.
I also notice that I copy habits of my SLI dad when dealing with similar situations, that could just be family or it could be IE influence that family just bought me tons of exposure to. In certain situations I've even emulated my SLE relative's behaviors, way before I knew socionics, because I was placed in a similar situation. And none of this was conscious. I could only notice looking back and feeling weird about it.
@Sol Hm as far as I managed to decode the writing : p it was interesting. I'm not familiar with Mahometanism but I would have skepticism for sure about asking for concrete things lol.
I think I'm not able to be influenced emotionally by praying or by rituals or anything like that. Somehow I'm too sober/level-headed for this. I have had trance states spontaneously but definitely no complex wordings or predictions or anything like that
I had other mystical-ish states but those I see as just my mind's more mysterious parts esp. with regard to emotional stuff. It was half spontaneous and I kind of also self-suggested myself into these states, and I personally just see it as me figuring out emotional and mental stuff for myself. I'm not a total atheist though, I'm not trying to explain it in an absolute way by declaring that it's just my mind. It probably is, but it could be actually "more" than just my mind (something transcendent outside me lol), I'm not totally excluding that bc we don't even know what this world really is.
I did not understand the last 3 sentences about atheism/saints/elfs for kids.
It works 2-4 hours of concentrated prey to God image with its traits as said above and mb you'll get it. The head may feel some pain. Also helps to ask about the same everyday for about a month or longer. Step by step you'll get something interesting, I'm sure. A low possible positive events which relate to what you are asking for. I remember 3 cases, at least. I asked and got on the next day. 2 times it was to meet a human I wanted to see. Mb it activated unconsciouse telepathic abbilities to influence and interact with people, mb more. The trances which you get during preys study you to use the imagination as a way to get something. Probably anything what you may imagine may become with more chance after that practices. Religions is one of approaches to that.
It may work with humans and their behavior definetely. If you'll ask alike "Make this 1 kg stone as 1 kg of gold" - I rather doubt you'll get it. But a chance you'll accidentally will get a serious income, as you wanted alike.
> I think I'm not able to be influenced emotionally by praying or by rituals or anything like that.
You may try to influence on people, - to inspire some emotional states in them. After some time mb it will work. I suppose all people can this, - to use telepathic abbility consciously.
I have a familiar woman. She had kind of depression or asthenia. I tried to fix that. Did several askings for her to feel better. She knew nothing what I do. After some time I've asked her. She said about emotional improvements in recent time. The effect lasted not for long.
> Somehow I'm too sober/level-headed for this. I have had trance states spontaneously but definitely no complex wordings or predictions or anything like that
Predictions as visions should be easier for N types, base Ni especially. They dream all day long, anyway. Some usefulness could to be, at least. About a weather tomorrow. There are schools about prediction technics. Some of them may use deeper trances with religious preying, alike exist in Judaism.
> I'm not a total atheist though, I'm not trying to explain it in an absolute way by declaring that it's just my mind.
mind operates by own models. in this sense - it's never the reality as it is. if it's useful - we may trust to it. is it real? no one knows what is real. the science have troubles to describe some things they notice - they do not fit to previous models, so they develop and check new models regularly. the same is with anything in our mind
it's never "just your mind" - as it exists in objective reality which influences on it. but it's never the true reality what we see and think. the reality is always unpredictable to some degree
> I did not understand the last 3 sentences about atheism/saints/elfs for kids.
The general sense is that religions and other esoteric explanations are only models. They may contain not obligate parts to do something. Also some models are simpler, but may be enough to be useful.
Like I said I'm too sober for this to work for me
I suspect these practices have to elicit some mind state and emotional state changes for them to work. That's why I'm saying I'm too sober for it
Nice but again I'm too level-headed to inspire emotional states deliberately in othersYou may try to influence on people, - to inspire some emotional states in them. After some time mb it will work. I suppose all people can this, - to use telepathic abbility consciously.
I have a familiar woman. She had kind of depression or asthenia. I tried to fix that. Did several askings for her to feel better. She knew nothing what I do. After some time I've asked her. She said about emotional improvements in recent time. The effect lasted not for long.
That's fine as long as our perception does usually align enough with objective realityit's never "just your mind" - as it exists in objective reality which influences on it. but it's never the true reality what we see and think. the reality is always unpredictable to some degree
Right that makes sense. I sometimes do try to translate some ideas to my own more technical approaches. It's fun translating. (Not to do the practices, just simply to interpret the models.)The general sense is that religions and other esoteric explanations are only models. They may contain not obligate parts to do something. Also some models are simpler, but may be enough to be useful.
.
I never mentioned it would be conscious though. And I def don't think it's gonna be enough for you to be truly competent, but much better at it than you were previous to exposure.
As far as advice, I'm always on the internet seeking advice and most of the times it never clicks, I always feel some rationalization against it that naturally forms in my mind, but LSE advice or even SLI advice I always get the sensation "ahhh, I knew that but it's good to hear someone actually say it."
And the bold part is a good point I think the more exposure you get to people the more well rounded you become, I just think it's less friction in development with a dual since you are already being suggested to develop in that direction.
And I was aware you didn't, my exact point is that it should be more conscious development than what Socionics talks about.
Disagreed on "much better", without the conscious development this isn't all that true in my experience - also I'm not really talking about competency in the skills directly where your brain has weaknesses, but more like, becoming aware and then finding ways to make up for the issues.And I def don't think it's gonna be enough for you to be truly competent, but much better at it than you were previous to exposure.
Hm yeah ok we have very diffreent experiences and ideas on all thisAs far as advice, I'm always on the internet seeking advice and most of the times it never clicks, I always feel some rationalization against it that naturally forms in my mind, but LSE advice or even SLI advice I always get the sensation "ahhh, I knew that but it's good to hear someone actually say it."
And I think it doesn't just magically work is my pointAnd the bold part is a good point I think the more exposure you get to people the more well rounded you become, I just think it's less friction in development with a dual since you are already being suggested to develop in that direction.
But glad we agree on one thing at least lol
If you don't speak spanish, but you live in a house for 1 year with someone who speaks spanish, you will pick up on words, consciously and unconsciously, just by living with them. You will be much better with spanish then you ever were before you lived with the person, consciously and unconsciously.
I see the same with our areas of weakness and exposure to people who are good in those areas. I don't think it's magic, but just picking up behaviors or habits of others that serve to help your issues. Subconsciously collecting tools for your tools box to deal with situations that require them.
Duality sounds like it would be most appealing to Gamma NT:
Maximum benefit, minimum long term risk...
It doesn't/ wouldn't surprise me that the idea of duality becomes less appealing, as you move away from these functions..
As a Gamma NT, duality does appeal to me, and relationships generally become more and more difficult with people who share fewer and fewer of my valued functions. However, this isn't just property of Gamma NT's; it happens to everyone.
For example, my father, ex-wife, and son are all Delta SLI's, so I've been observing SLI's closely for my entire life, and one thing I've noticed is that, for all their "coolness under fire" and their generally excellent taste in clothes and in arranging a comfortable life for themselves, they live in abject fear. Fear that their incredibly planned out lives, which they so carefully guard and nurture, will eventually bore them to death. Enter the absolutely crazed, random IEE who suggests going out for ice cream or an Alaskan cruise or dressing the cat up in formal clothes. SLI's need IEE's Ne, and IEE's need someone to prevent them from spending the rent money on squirrel food "Because the poor little dears look so cold out there."
As for the ESI-LIE duality being "ideal", please read the article here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ng-an-ISFj-ESI
Last edited by Adam Strange; 09-17-2019 at 01:27 AM.