This was specifically in response to @Economists "so I think it's useful not to get too caught up in stereotyping or over-romanticizing dual relations."
I'm not sure if I'm suggested as defending or romancing duality, but in my mind I've moved past that a long time ago. I can see how it would appear like that here, though.
Post-duality in this usage meant I don't really care about it either way. I was at certain points anti- or pro-duality, and now I'm returning towards a general ambivalence, with a slight sense of greater appreciation for it now. Not that the intertype relation is particularly world-beating, but really appreciating the dynamics I do have with my dual friends.
I've been in serious relationships with people that were not my dual, and, trope-confirmingly so, almost married one of them. I've been in periods where I thought my dual was explicitly NOT the best match for me; even after becoming familiar with socionics. I thought they were too boring or risk averse or unable to deal with hardship or exertion, etc, in a more categorical way. I still might see some that way, but I don't generally throw that around types as a whole - I think that's not very good practice.
Do I no longer believe in duality? I mean, I "believe" in socionics, which necessitates there are different types, and some of them have arrangements of their elements in ways that are referred to as duality. Sure. Do I think duality is the best/only option for a relationship romantically? No.
I think people will go through rotations about what they want from other people in terms of relationships, to a degree. I think it's best to keep that outside of what socionics says about information processing and metabolism. A lot of the tropes about what a type is or isn't or how they act or don't or should are all kind of..... arbitrary, and somewhat Thought-Catalogue in their overall substance.



Reply With Quote