Actually, your dual and your conflictor have all the same dimensionalities of functions, but your conflictor values the opposite one to your dual. This is why I hate MBTI notation. If your type is ILE, you have an
lead and tend to back that up with a
demonstrative. Your SEI dual has an
lead with an
demonstrative. You seek
, so your dual using
(your PoLR) in service of
is essentially just stabilizing, and you cover up each other's PoLRs so to speak. On the other hand, conflictor ESI uses
in service of
, so when the both of you use your demonstratives, it leads both of you straight into each other's PoLRs, since the demonstrative functions are the suggestive of the other, and the lead (which is in charge and that can't be changed) is the PoLR of the other. This is the maximum destabilizing relationship. But due to MBTI notation, people think the main thing is just the creative or something. The creative is a strong function, and it's valued, but the interesting relationship between duality and conflict only makes sense if you actually think in socionics terms. This is also related to why in a lot of stories, the hero and villain are quasi-identicals. They have exactly the same functions in terms of strength and dimensionality, but valued exactly the opposite, and one's dual also happens to be the other's conflictor.