Because duality is a "BIG DEAL"Originally Posted by Economist
Well you know what they say about OP.Medusa and I weren't trying to say LSEs are dumb or shallow, just that things don't click between LSEs and EIIs right from the beginning necessarily, for numerous possible reasons, which is true of all dual relations, especially between people who haven't trained themselves to look for their dual. This is just providing another angle to consider in response to OP's question so that we have a variety of perspectives in the thread.
I'm not really a fan of model G but I think dimensionaltiy is important and I agree.My LSE best friend is one of the most woke people I've ever met, and he took care of me in a crisis during which no one else was there for me, none of my EII best friends even, so I know LSEs aren't dumb or shallow. But the Te/Se world is different from the Fi/Ni world so an LSE who doesn't know socionics wouldn't immediately notice and like an EII (or vice versa). (Gulenko's Model G defines types through their 4-D IEs, so there's also a theory that stipulates the importance of Se for LSEs.)
I don't think anything that is being said about duals not immediately clicking is controversial even in more classical socionics literature. It's been said very often that people, esp wit h little experience, will not see the value or merits of their dual, as they focus on very different spheres of informational prioritization etc.etc. \[/QUOTE]
Reply With Quote