Socionics is a sham
You are drawn to less than ideal ITR's like supervision, superego, and conflict, while your duals and activity's fly under your radar due to percieving them as uninteresting thanks to their demonstrative functions in your super-ego.
Screw the intelligent designer who crafted this system !
Quadras and some ITR shouldn't be taken at face value. Of course you will be drawn to your supervision/super-ego/supervisee, the supervision ring has a shared Cognitive Style, which means you guys basically think the same way but with a different setting/values.Originally Posted by roger557
The best example I can think of this is basically esoteric groups being filled with EIEs and ILIs. SEEs and LSIs being pretty common in the politics (not ideological) sphere. SLEs having ESI and IEE friends they like to hang out with for reasons unknown. And a LIE I know acts like a pseudo-SLE for his IEI gf. Almost all of these people have no knowledge about socionics whatsoever.
The hard thing about some stuff like activation and even dual is how massively different they can be. I have noticed that SxEs and xSIs just kind of avoid all the stuff that has to do withuntil they meet a
Did you know that there's a tunnel under Ocean Bvd?Personal Website: https://sites.google.com/view/the-qams-diaries/the-qams-diaries
Ya lol God as the arbiter and commander of this sector of battlefield stardust is 1 chime in the whole boundary bazooka of cleansing and purification.
TelvanniYoda GiordanoBruno BruceLee GeorgeLucas AnakinJirachi Regigigas DominatorLugiaWes TyphlosionMontalk
It's a miracle, but BunnyRaptor did actually beat Lebron James ~ it was Rainbows the Octopus as Lugia, Walking Wake the Suicune/Celebi and Pikachu, heavenly waves of blessed arcanum jolts shivering auroras of blooming expansion and redirecting wires of uplifting terror strikes and siege engines obliterating!!
Wesley Sneijder claimed UEFA 2010 was harder than FIFA. Mavs 2011 was harder than 2013.
A fair face may fade, but a beautiful soul lasts forever. Lucky Numbers - 53, 10, 29, 14, 1, 21.
1999-2000 = 2013+2016 | GosensZidane=2024 199
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...wind-2002-2003
This is nothing new. It is well known that duality can be hard to start. Once it gets going it can be very comfortable and intimate though. And I have often been attracted to supervisors but as a relationship in the long run it is awful.
Keep observing and learning
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Your favoring socionics ideologies in your argument to discredit the socionics system.
It isn't that one is drawn to those relations it's that those relations simply stand out due to the exotic emotional responses those relations tend to generate
Let's say you hit a restaurant & decide to order spaghetti with a side of fruit. Your dual, who's already there eating quietly, might be eating fruit with a side of spagh. Your conflictor, who just settled in, might be eating waffles with ice cream on top.
Point is, the most favorable relations have values & behaviors similar to your own. Their habits likely will not stand out as irregular. Less favorable relations carry different values that will resonate differently catching your interest, at least initially
What people are drawn to the beginning is just often not good for them as time goes on. Eating sugar is a lot like this really. It tastes good to most people but it's like literal poison in your body and eating too much of it causes all kinds of cancers. You never go by what feels good initially. It's why love and intimacy is better than lust and initial attractions etc. People like to morally be against lust without really explaining why it's bad. If it was explained more properly- maybe people wouldn't get involved in these unhealthy relationship things that are bad for them. But even duality fails for NTR reasons. Rational dyads probably have much better headstart than the irrational ones.
It does take time. Duality is often slow to start but then it often comes into place where you realize it was the best thing for you. And it's related to sex but not just about sex either. Basing a relationship only on attraction is moronic- and I've seen more straight people do this than gays yet we gays are supposedly the perverted evil ones.
This is TMI- but I'm turned on by Mel Gibson sometimes even though he's a LSE homophobic douchebag. ((well in the past I was, he's probably too old now)) He's just hot and manly and like a closeted self-hating 'bear' or something idk lol. But it's typical Conflictor Lust. If he was gay and we actually started a relationship together- it would be hell.
Time for @woofwoofl to write a funny fan fiction about this!
Do not speak ill of Aušra Augustinavičiūtėičiūtė.
Love this specific message, and I have also observed a lot of your observations. In a way, it's true:
*Duality does take time, up to 5 years of knowing each other and opening up to be a good thing, and just like all healthy things: it, indeed, does take time to get accostumed to and getting rid of old bad habits.
*The above, essentially, involves a process of a small-scale ego death. Essentially, you're giving up what you're accostumed to in order to know what's best for you metaphysically
*The statement above also implies the death of several things: the idea of omnipotence and omniscience that we create as children of ourselves, and recognizing the other as an other as opposed to the imposition of one's own vision of the other, which means that duality, in a way, forces us to see "the other perspective" as another perspective as opposed to something similar than us, something that's easier said than done.
Yes, I just finished reading Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving.
Also, it's funny how people do call gay people "evil perverts" when in reality, playing with someone's feelings just for sex is pretty nasty, as opposed to a hook up where both parties agree that it's only a thing for the moment.
Did you know that there's a tunnel under Ocean Bvd?Personal Website: https://sites.google.com/view/the-qams-diaries/the-qams-diaries
Yeah pretending that a relationship is more soulful, deep or moral than it really is ((and especially if you play with somebody's feelings just to get in their pants)) - when all you really like is the big dick or hot pussy is more disgusting than both parties consensually agreeing that this is for fun only and to not get attached. I have a high libido naturally - but I don't really want to have real sex a lot because of the physical consequences and even if you cure one disease it seems like being too much like that you would just create another one- or spread viruses too easily to begin with even if they are not technically STDs. etc. Encouraging people of all orientations to be less slutty/whore-ish and more monogamous but not trying to erase sexuality and it's animalistic drive due to some weird moral God-complex is a happy medium that I like.
I think people just overplay sex too much. Either put it as the centrepiece of their lives (the stuff you mention of STDs and stuff) or infantilize it completely. I think sex is sex, that's it, that's how we ironically achieve the medium, by neither overdoing or erasing it. Sometimes, the best way to arrive a medium point to a sociopolitical question is to just to de-politicize it.
Last edited by QamsX; 07-19-2021 at 11:41 PM.
Did you know that there's a tunnel under Ocean Bvd?Personal Website: https://sites.google.com/view/the-qams-diaries/the-qams-diaries
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote