I don't get dual relationships (duality)

[Myst]

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... (...) transformation, leaving an old part of our self behind and change for the sake of the person next to us

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.

and not just be ourselves and wait that someone magically accept it all because they're our dualz. which is extremely immature and delusional.

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.


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 ....

the theory of socionics duality is never touched, not even from afar

It's mentioned in several psychology sources but with a more realistic take than Socionics's.

Here's an article. https://www.apa.org/monitor/mar04/mixing

[ooo]

@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.

[Myst]

@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...