Synthesizing descriptions of duality.

[Aramas]

Lol, same. I kept searching and reading anything about this tense stage. Duals are very very different from each other, I didn't understand how they would get along despite all those differences, turns out it's not that easy, it's really a challenge and majority of people are not ready for it. It requires so much work that's why I think breaking up can be pretty common in Dual pairs. But if people want and are ready to improve, it will be the best for them.
There's something positive I noticed from my experience, after every conflict, I felt somewhat refreshed even if the problem wasn't solved (that was very puzzling) and even if we seperated, I had a sense that even if I encounter them again, I would talk to them as usual because I saw and knew their true self. That's something I didn't feel in other relations.

I've never had any close, long-term relationships of any kind, so I don't have a lot of experiences to go off of. The relationship descriptions are therefore not something I tend to rely on. I have only known a few people even moderately closely, and those only for a couple years each, often spaced out in time and in rather disparate contexts. No relationship really sticks out to me as having been amazingly good, even when I take into account potentially positive conflicts.

[j0ker]

Hi,

Thanks for the referrer link. After a long hiatus, I've got some good socionics insights that I wanted to write down.

However, I must reply to this thread. My blog post is completely wrong. I was NOT talking about a duality relationship. I was talking about a Illusory relationship. These are dangerous relationships, because they look like Duality, but they are not. The name of the relationship is very good, but the description (as found on socionics.com) is very misleading. Go with my description instead -- they look like Duality but they are not.

One post on here said something to the tune of "socionics does not really argue there are conflicts in duality." That is dead-on correct. If there is a conflict, beware! It's probably not duality.

I plan to publish a longer blogpost fully expounding on the Illusory relationship.

Basically, TL;DR, these takeaways
1) my blogpost is about illusory, not duality.
2) illusory relationships are dangerous b/c they fool you into thinking they're duality, but they're not
3) psychoanalysis is easy to get wrong. Be very, very careful! Better to just ask the person to take the test and from there tweak a letter or too, since people usually don't even understand themselves that well!

[Suz]

Hi,

Thanks for the referrer link. After a long hiatus, I've got some good socionics insights that I wanted to write down.

However, I must reply to this thread. My blog post is completely wrong. I was NOT talking about a duality relationship. I was talking about a Illusory relationship. These are dangerous relationships, because they look like Duality, but they are not. The name of the relationship is very good, but the description (as found on socionics.com) is very misleading. Go with my description instead -- they look like Duality but they are not.

One post on here said something to the tune of "socionics does not really argue there are conflicts in duality." That is dead-on correct. If there is a conflict, beware! It's probably not duality.

I plan to publish a longer blogpost fully expounding on the Illusory relationship.

Basically, TL;DR, these takeaways
1) my blogpost is about illusory, not duality.
2) illusory relationships are dangerous b/c they fool you into thinking they're duality, but they're not
3) psychoanalysis is easy to get wrong. Be very, very careful! Better to just ask the person to take the test and from there tweak a letter or too, since people usually don't even understand themselves that well!

figured as much. Reading your OP, I kind of assumed your relationship probably wasn't duality.