Do we NEED Duality?
I have playing around with this in my heads for the fun of it. I have survived most of my life without a dual and could probably go much more if I need to. Most people don't end up marrying their dual either.
As much as I do favor duality, I think a sobering or alternate look at it can be helpful.
I want to take on a different perspective for the hell of it. Do we NEED duality? Is duality always the best? Are there drawbacks to duality that nobody talks about?
Last edited by MissDucki; 10-02-2021 at 01:07 PM.
No, I don't think so. I think it's right that people tend to get along with their duals, and maybe it's good to interact with them occasionally, but @Adam Strange is the only person I can think of here who seems to think duality is somehow necessary for a healthy relationship or for a healthy approach to life in general.
From what I've seen of dual couples, I think one or both partners tend to fall into a kind of psychic laziness approaching acedia. They seem fairly stable on a certain level, though. Less likely to break up than average, I'd guess.
I thought about posting about "the dangers of duality" a while back but never got around to it. I've always wondered if duality could make it harder to leave a bad/abusive relationship, since I don't think duality protects you from people being unhealthy.
Not really what you're asking, but along the same lines. I've seen posts debating if a dual stunts your growth because they never force you to "fend for yourself" or be independent, but that could be more of an issue of codependency than duality. Are duality and codependency the same??
Anyway, I'm curious to hear what people think.
Maybe a bit of an echo chamber, too? Like you say or do something and the other person is always like "yes, uh-huh, exactly." Which can be nice in a way....Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
I know a couple of dual couples and they're pretty much exactly as you described. They're overall healthy people and it does seem like marriages that will stand the test of time, like nothing is really going to put a chink in this thing and cause it to crumble.
Do you think the "laziness" is true apathy or just the result of being able to be fully yourself enough that you can relax? I've wondered about that before.
Psychologically, we require balance. Romance is a social construct that humans have convinced themselves that they need. Leaning on another person for psychological balancing is foolish. If you're an adult, be an adult.
Mentally balance yourself for your own well being as its your responsibility to do so. If you meet a dual, that might he best. IMO, relationships are a dessert not the main course for the state of your emotional health
I think it makes sense to look at it in terms of benefits and drawbacks. Typically duality is something that is seen as a force of potential stagnation. It doesn't hurt to "try out" duality, but you shouldn't follow it to your grave. If you need a different energy, do the different energy, however the way the original socionists describe duality, it's supposed to click and be clearly better than everything else.
A wise, flexible approach
Communication between types is like food. You need some of it, and if you want to be healthy you're gonna need to make sure your diet isn't full of shit foods, but if you want to really get the most out of eating you're gonna try to go for the best food that you can find.
The problem with duality as a whole is that it has been spoonfed to us when we are young, through idealism. When we grow up thinking you need someone to compliment you, or you need to find your other and you find the other person, but it doesn't work out, you have been fooled by the high expectations placed onto you in the long term. When you tunnel vision this ideal as the the only foundation for relationships, then it becomes a problem realitsitically. So what if you don't get your Knight in shining armour/Dame of the palace. There are more people out there for you. Not just you "dual".
No, no you don't. What you need is a healthy attachment style as that is what really affects the quality of your interpersonal relationships. Fix that and the rest follows suit.
That said you will subconsciously seek it out and draw it onto yourself subconsciously as well. A healthy ILI will seek out a healthy SEE. Now perhaps he hits upon and gets serious about a romantic relationship with an LSI instead or, god forbid, an ESE. He's going to go into those feeling pretty good, but may feel a bit needy with the former and might feel a bit miffed by extended periods of being in the presence of the ESE if he was being honest with himself (though he probably won't know why exactly). That won't matter overmuch though because that's him nitpicking over an otherwise wonderful person/relationship. Even if your conflictor pisses you off on the subconscious level you still feel their bond/love towards you on that same level and that will overcome the rage inducing incidents of them being utterly blind and stupid to how things actually work/ought to be from both points of view.
Your dual is in the same boat BTW. You are naturally drawn to them and they naturally draw the likes of you towards them. It ain't an exact science but more often than not you'll end up with your dual romantically and become the closest of friends with those who are your dual. Assuming, again, you lack attachment issues. If you have them, well, socionics won't help you solve them and as I've only recently happened upon their existence I have only just begun to try and form a synthesis that puts them into consideration in this context.
For example, what does a broken vs. a healthy given type look like? I can only speak for my own so I'd need healthy example of the others. Not easy to find as these issues are a very recent discovery in actual psychology and a thing the PTB probably knew about and did all it could to ensure it never gained or gains traction in the mainstream as it is the key to fucking them over permanently. For instance, how do I describe my relationship with God? I'd say it's the same as the relationship between a healthy father and his newborn son/daughter. The fact I have to go out of my way to define what that looks like and don't know how to do so off the top of my head is a manifestation/testament of just how far this current world has fallen into evil. We're at the nadir folks, the lowest point, the apex of the devil's hour.
Fortunately, those of us who keep the faith know that while the Devil has his hour, God has his day. The dawn approaches folks. Don't despair and fall to the wicked ones when we're all so close to a glorious new dawn.
I wouldn't say people are naturally drawn to their duals. If someone has had no to minimum exposure to their duals they may very well go after people who they know they get along well with. For instance, I've never really gotten close to any SEI, and while I do believe that I would interact with them better than I would an IEE, I've had enough good interactions with IEE's to be willing to try to date them. The thing with being "healthy" is that while it is a requirement for any successful relationship, two healthy conflictors will still get along badly when left to try to communicate together, and the only way to stop that bad interaction is to admit that it's there and try to build around. The problem with that though is in a very close relationship, people should not be trying very hard to establish good relations. It takes alot of time and energy that could be used on other, more fulfilling things to maintain a conflictor relationship than a dual.
I'm the child of married conflictors who've been together 41 years and married 36 years on October 5th. Do yourself a favor and do not marry your conflictor under aby circumstances, even if you're both well. Both my parents are Christians but each absolutely lights up when speaking with someone they are NOT married to. I love my folks but they argue by their very nature and nothing one says, calms the other down. I can't speak for conflictor friendships but, ime, the marriages sucks absolute ass.
An interesting thing about duality is the nonverbal communication. The fact simple glance is read relatively well by the other. In socionics, they call it "rest". To me, socionics is like driving a car. There are fundamentals but, while driving, improvisation can be key.
Waiting to hear from the ones here who are in dual relationships....
I think if we needed it for survival, one of our parents would be our dual.....and from what we gather that's not necessarily the case.... like you say, you have survived so far.... so just go for whoever compliments you, and doesn't work against you..... I can see that person being a different ITR for different ppl
Similar values makes sense ofc though...
Also would be cool to hear from people in non-dual relationships..I’ve read so many old threads and posts on this forum and people don’t seem to comment much on their successful non-dual relationships (only ones that ended). I guess they might feel a bit uncomfortable because of all the dual hype.
I know of quite a few dual couples. Two dual couples I know of seem a bit out of touch with reality in some ways. They don’t seem to get ‘normal people’ problems.
Duality would be good but having friends of several different types can be the next best thing.
I do wonder what type I’ll end up with because I don’t feel in a position to go dual-chasing. Probably a semi-dual or look-alike. Semi-dual would be better technically but I’ve been through some difficult things and my heart is saying look-a-like. I don’t know whether that’s my heart telling me what I need or want haha
No you don't need it. And it's not even necessarily desirable. Socionics is right about the chemistry though.
Von Franz writes:
In marriage, as Jung points out, one tends to marry the opposite type (= dual / semi dual, my comment). And then again he is, or so he thinks for the moment, freed from the disagreeable task of confronting his inferior function. That is one of the greatest blessings and sources of happiness in the early stages of marriage; suddenly the whole weight of the inferior function is gone, one lives in a blessed oneness with the other, and every problem is solved. But if one of the partners dies, or the need comes up in one of them to develop the inferior function instead of just leaving those section of life to the other, the trouble starts.
Lectures on Jung's typology (von Franz, Hillman)
As we can see von Franz states the obvious fact that duality can be comfortable, but that things are more complicated than that.
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)
I am in a dual relationship, I don't think it's necessary to be happy. I think "asymmetrical" relationships are romantic. People aren't puzzle pieces to fit neatly together.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
I meant complements btw.... so someone who is a positive addition to your life.... not 'nice ass' or whatever
you dont need it. all you need is food water and shelter. but that would be a very basic and unfulfilling life.
Also I think Gulenko pointed out that many duals don’t get together until later in life. Not sure what research that’s based on or how late in life he means. Plenty of people divorce these days, perhaps when they become friendly with a dualDuality is for retirement? Haha
Some ppl will be too broken after a death, to want to get someone else...... and then some ppl know socionics and still find it really hard to get with a dual....
I'm not against duality btw.... I just don't see it as the only option
Some people get jaded while simultaneously begin understanding their personal likes & dislikes. Even when one is unfamiliar with socionics, their life experience draws them to dual-like functionality. An LII, I suppose, would charmed be by an ESE-minded environmentAlso I think Gulenko pointed out that many duals don’t get together until later in life. Not sure what research that’s based on or how late in life he means. Plenty of people divorce these days, perhaps when they become friendly with a dual
For example, an LII in their 50s might appreciate displays of "connective" emotion & "healthy", comfortive circumstances while preferring not to engage in discussions of internal ethics or "pushy" social agendas
Last edited by Stray Cat; 10-02-2021 at 05:18 PM.
One thing I dislike about socionics is it doesn't address lead function overuse except to say one should rebalance it with its counterpart from an outside source. People generally associate that concept (and, in some ways, cling to it) through personal relationships.
Another thing is that the idea of a soulmate or other half is an archetypal idea. So we easily project it on duality, and suddenly duality has become the perfect relationship literally made in heaven (the way we think and fantasize about it). You could say that we project duality-the-archetype onto duality-the-real-thing. One should try to keep a sober mind.
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)
I think people subconsciously seek out their dual seeking function from other people even if they aren't in a serious or "official" relationship with them. You can receive your dual seeking function from other people in social conversations without putting a neat bow on things and telling the world 'we're in a relationship now' etc. Especially when only certain sexual orientations or race combinations or people from certain economic classes were even allowed to do this for the longest time - not to go all SJW or anything but yeah.
The brain naturally needs a type of duality to create mental peace within yourself - it certainly doesn't mean that you will like every dual you meet or want to marry them etc. The rational dual dyads are usually much better at meeting people and forming life-long bonds with them ime.
Duality can be dangerous depending on who you are. If you are prone to codependence, then being mentally comfortable with someone could be one of the most dangerous things you can do. Plus, as much as my autism wants me to categorize people and mentally masturbate about "Ti ego gf", I'd go on to say that basing any necessity on Socionics grounds is an incredibly dangerous idea. Socionics is about information transference between people, it should mainly end there. The idea of "valuation" in it overblown. You do not strongly unvalueand
as an SEI. They are just seen as expedient and more or less cumbersome to deal with when your other Rational elements are used. This is evident in how you can reap positive benefits from such IEs and even feel good about it. Now, I will say that you shouldn't try to constantly over "value" said elements because that can mess up your energy and sense of direction, but I digress.
What matters are congruence in character, values, and goals. Those can transcend types. Seriously, like if you're in a marriage raising children what would be better for them to see? A dual couple with complete opposite characters or a conflict couple with compatible characters? Both seem really iffy even given the factors I just mentioned, but I'd throw my money on the latter.
Let's also not forget Socionics is literally Aushra trying to deal with her PoLR which for her is... the Relationships element.
I also have conflictor parents, and you are absolutely right. Neither of them seems particularly unhealthy from the outside, but slowly together they've deteriorated.
Romance is not socially constructed. It might be socially desirable and even borderline worshipped, but it is definitely not a construct of society. In before "marriage was once a business transaction".
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying romance is biological, it's been with us for as long as we have been primates. If you have not felt romance, that is another matter altogether.
I would liken duality to what biologists call a symbotic relationship. Much like the shark and and the remora fish, duals help each other out in ways they can't do alone. While they may be able to survive if they were by themselves, their quality of life wouldnt be as good as if they were together.
Duality is nice to experience.
What is a need? Do we need internet?
Anyway..
I have been around with a highly reserved person who appears bit business like but it is a mask. Strange.. she seems to lighten up bit by bit from inexpressive to radiating.
Especially after she seemed to catch the basis of my weirdness... [as in weird peculiar curiosity and strange thinking and of course the whole around it]. SEI.
Very peculiar indeed.
So, let's just think it like in terms of "Do we need internet?".
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I disagree. Romance is a social construct, and a financially exploitative one, but this ain't the place to explain why.
I don't think it is at all. I know from first hand experience and that of my three married brothers as well.
That you hold such a cynical point of view is sad to me.
Society did not construct romance, in the same way romance is not constructed by certain other animals who, through inference, experience romance as well.
Im wondering if you also believe gender is a social construct? This type of thinking is what Petterson was warning us about.
our brains and biology are social constructs. everything in our lives are social constructs. the items we use are social constructs. houses are social constructs. ur genitals are social constructs. our organisms are social constructs of cells. cells are social constructs of organelles.
romance is no more related to financial exploitation than everything else too. ur need to food and shelter are being exploited.
we dont need duality IEI best type everyone else is an IEI that's bad at IEI. so u are bad at life. become as one with the perfect image. become as gods.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
thats his excuse to everyone that he is a man
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
The existence of duals is a small natural step in the history of evolution. Sometimes things fall into place and symmetry occurs amidst chaos. It is stability and balance which for some reason we experience as excitement when we first experience it? It’s natural, almost too natural.
My parents are super-ego and won't meet or talk to each other but in court. Maybe we don't need duals but there is no way anyone needs bad ITRs.
Gluenko describes it as ‘coziness’ I believe. Makes me think of this ESE guy I worked with briefly. I would walk to the station with him on the way home and he’d tell me about the long bath he was going to have when he got home. He sounded so into the idea of his bath, I found it really funny picturing him. That’s what duality seems like, an ESE having a nice bath. Talking of baths I remember an LSE lady telling she me likes to have baths in the dark when she’s depressed. Maybe that’s bad duality lol.
Last edited by Bethanyclaire; 10-02-2021 at 10:30 PM.
Are you referring to Benefit and Supervision?
I didn't say gender was a social construct, I said romance is
Thanks for telling everyone you watch, "The View"
Also I think some duals are very show off-y look at me, this person changed my life on Instagram, where as some dual couples are like yeah, we met, we got on, it’s no big deal. I wonder what the average dual couple would think about socionics if they found out about it haha.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
