Jung destroying the concept of duality

[Lord Pixel]

It could be either really. It depends on the thing

I usually perceive the former but if it's really similar to grandma's silk drapes then I might realise that too.

(I don't know why Si == grandmas BTW LOL)


Edit: the SLE's description was of a specific one. I.e. like grandma's silk drapes, tho it wasn't about grandmas in the post

I just said grandma's it could have been anything really.

I will say I don't experience sensation as separate from myself. It's almost always linked to some past impression. I went sky diving once and it felt like when I went on a roller coaster, while when I asked the ILI I went with she just said it felt like rushing wind. But I'm Se PoLR. I imagine Si PoLR would have a hard time associating sensations with past impressions. I imagine Ni would override and just create an archetype out of the object, or reduce the sensation down to it's most basic form, in a way making up for Si. "Touches rock, feels hard, like all stones." or something like that. Or maybe they have a hard time noticing all the different sensations but have an easier time reducing them all to one basic core sensation, like out of all the data they just leave only knowing the essential info? Not "Touches rock and it feels jaggedy like the rock's in my cousin's backyard."

I've seen Se types smell something foul they always say "That smells like shit!" even when it doesn't actually smell like actual shit, and for me it's usually like "That smells like rotten eggs/ cow maneur/ corn." or something more specific.

[grumpyvic81]

We use the word "feel" as a verb for physical sensation. No one ever says "When I touch silk it senses soft." or " Let me sense your hands? They sense cold." instead we say "feel", but we aren't talking about an emotion, so the word "feel" and "feeling" in the realm of sensations can just be replaced with the word sense. We usually use sense as a verb for intuition "I sense something coming." but we aren't talking about sensation.

Well feelings and sensations pretty much overlap in some brain areas. On purpose, as many functions of emotion are closely related to the body. Don't try to make sense of this in a socionical context - Socionics is wrong here (unsurprising), science investigated this more objectively.

[grumpyvic81]

I just said grandma's it could have been anything really.

I will say I don't experience sensation as separate from myself. But I'm Se PoLR. I imagine Si PoLR would have a hard time associated sensations with past impressions. I imagine Ni would override and just create an archetype out of the object, or reduce the sensation down to it's most basic form, in a way making up for Si. "Touches rock, feels hard, like all stones." or something like that. Not "Touches rock and it feels jaggedy like the rock's in my cousin's backyard."

I notice with Se types smell something foul they always say "That smells like shit!" even when it doesn't actually smell like actual shit, and for me it's usually like "That smells like rotten eggs." or something more specific.

Thinking more about this, I usually am not in the mindset to get that specific. I usually don't linger around on a sensation that long to try and make these associations like your example here. Again...if it's obviously similar to another object I will think of it instantly yes but otherwise not necessary.

But I would say that most basic form of sensation you described is too basic for me. I sense more nuance about the stone or whatever else. It's all done in a pretty holistic way actually like my brain processes all the details at once at high resolution and my brain actually DOES better when there is much sensory detail than if there is less sensory detail. I just process quicker with more sensory details.

[Lord Pixel]

Thinking more about this, I usually am not in the mindset to get that specific. I usually don't linger around on a sensation that long to try and make these associations like your example here. Again...if it's obviously similar to another object I will think of it instantly yes but otherwise not necessary.

But I would say that most basic form of sensation you described is too basic for me. I sense more nuance about the stone or whatever else. It's all done in a pretty holistic way actually like my brain processes all the details at once at high resolution and my brain actually DOES better when there is much sensory detail than if there is less sensory detail. I just process quicker with more sensory details.

Well you do have Si 3D even if ignoring.

[Lord Pixel]

Well feelings and sensations pretty much overlap in some brain areas. On purpose, as many functions of emotion are closely related to the body. Don't try to make sense of this in a socionical context - Socionics is wrong here (unsurprising), science investigated this more objectively.

I do think emotions have sensations for sure. But that doesn't mean sensations from objects are always emotional when we say "This feels soft".

[Lord Pixel]

Thinking more about this, I usually am not in the mindset to get that specific. I usually don't linger around on a sensation that long to try and make these associations like your example here. Again...if it's obviously similar to another object I will think of it instantly yes but otherwise not necessary.

But I would say that most basic form of sensation you described is too basic for me. I sense more nuance about the stone or whatever else. It's all done in a pretty holistic way actually like my brain processes all the details at once at high resolution and my brain actually DOES better when there is much sensory detail than if there is less sensory detail. I just process quicker with more sensory details.

I also think for you it's more a matter of physical details provide facts. Like a "It's true it was brown, it's true it was big, it's true it was jagged, it's true it had moss." You mind builds a logical framework based off the tangible evidence, the more details/data the stronger and more concrete the framework? I'm making a huge assumption with all that.

[grumpyvic81]

I also think for you it's more a matter of physical details provide facts. Like a "It's true it was brown, it's true it was big, it's true it was jagged, it's true it had moss." You mind builds a logical framework based off the tangible evidence, the more details/data the stronger and more concrete the framework? I'm making a huge assumption with all that.

The more sensory details the more grounded it all feels and just the more easy on my brain. I don't really associate this with logical processing or frameworks though sure it's way easier to analyse when you have enough data. I'm like I just take in the sensory data and then at one point I guess I can organise logically and then have some judgment or conclusion ready.

I do think emotions have sensations for sure. But that doesn't mean sensations from objects are always emotional when we say "This feels soft".

Yeah I wasn't trying to say that

[Lord Pixel]

The more sensory details the more grounded it all feels and just the more easy on my brain. I don't really associate this with logical processing or frameworks though sure it's way easier to analyse when you have enough data. I'm like I just take in the sensory data and then at one point I guess I can organise logically and then have some judgment or conclusion ready.




Yeah I wasn't trying to say that

For some reason when people say grounded I never know what they mean. Maybe that's my Se PoLR.

[sbbds]

I also think for you it's more a matter of physical details provide facts. Like a "It's true it was brown, it's true it was big, it's true it was jagged, it's true it had moss." You mind builds a logical framework based off the tangible evidence, the more details/data the stronger and more concrete the framework? I'm making a huge assumption with all that.

I didn’t read through most of this convo, but this is true for me.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

How does duality work or differ in the nonhetero communities?

Well that's the thing, I don't think it really differs that much! Just obviously two men or two women can't make a kid together lol. I used to think though heterosexual duals were much more likely to have kids who were 'better' and 'naturally superior' (on account of their parents being duals) but I now think that's kind of stupid & I was idealizing duality because I was bored and lonely. In fact I think it's fucked up now and the other way around is more likely to be true as I know quite a few dual couples who gave birth to handicapable children and stuff. Not trying to sound heartless or insensitive, but it's obviously a defect from 'perfect' or ultra norm to live life that way.

I apply it to myself too, as my parents were duals but as my grandma used to say my mom and dad's genes 'don't mix' she said it as a joke but probably had a lot of truth to it too.

So maybe shit, in that roudabout way duality really IS 'gay' like people say because in straight people it doesn't even make the perfect kids as it's supposed to, it makes genetically fucked up abhorreations lol. =D It makes monsters and/or Jerry Springer kids. And in gay people it can't make kids at all. Genetically mutant freak babies are more interesting and more worthy of love to me than super normal Karen children anyway though so /shrug. I like rooting for the underdog. Fuck your perfectly created children!

And I do know one dual couple that has a "perfect" normal and nice kid with no freak-ish traits that I know of so my theory needs a bigger sample selection. =D I don't know her that well to say one way or the other tho.

[xerx]

It's often mentioned in Eastern European sources that Aushra was locked in an unhappy marriage with her LSE benefactor, and that she may have overemphasized the benefits of duality as a result.