I don't get dual relationships (duality)

[Adam Strange]

I do believe you are overthinking. It's just a theory/conceit of mine but the commitment decision should be left to the introvert. If she (whom I assume is introverted) thinks that you have long term potential, than ya actually do.

After all, you already like her a lot. And believe you me, us introverts think very, very long and hard in regards to this question. We are well and fully aware of the limits of time and how every moment actually counts. In regards to the potential father/mother of our children, well, let's just say that we're very keen on ensuring the offspring experience the happiest of family environments provided we're not dramatically psychologically damaged.

This could be an entirely gamma thing, but that's just how I view things. The girl I'm crushing on may well become my wife. I had best be damn sure she is fit for that role. Beauty fades, but personality is forever. The instant I think she'd be a bad mother? Instant drop. If I was a girl... The instant I think he'd be a bad father? Dropped. I like to keep it simple and direct.

Lol, @End, thanks for that.

It is weird that you mentioned the requirement that a woman be a good mother. That was exactly the main criterion that I used in determining whether or not a woman has long-term potential.

When I met my ex-wife, she had several pluses and minuses.
The pluses were that she was intelligent, beautiful, thin, had a good work ethic, had fantastic taste in clothes and furnishings, and I thought she would make a good mother.

Minuses were that she wasn’t my “type”, she had had several rich BF’s before we met and none of them wanted to marry her, her family was a mess, she was kind of cold and remote, and she had a loud, weird laugh.

All of the negatives were overruled by the fact that I thought that she’d make an excellent mother. And she did.

Maybe this is a Gamma thing, I don’t know.

I’ve dated lots of women who don’t meet this criterion, or who don’t meet it in a way that I agree with. It’s not the only criterion, but it’s a big one.

[Mila]

@Adam Strange
I don't know if you ppl think like this because its part of your culture or because its part of your type/quadra values or doesn't have anything to do with any of that, but it seems to me like you think in relationships and marriage as if you were doing a business or acquiring a product. Like if such way of viewing relationships assure you a "good purchase" or something like that, and in the moment your "product" doesn't work as you expected you just throw it out. I don't think that seeing relationships or ppl as products, goods or things is going to improve your experience in that area or reduce problems, I tend to think that its just going to increase them.

[lemontrees]

When I've really liked someone, I didn't think about them in pluses and minuses.

Like, obv some baseline things had to be in place though.

Dunno, sounds like you married your ex w your brain. ;|

[Adam Strange]

When I've really liked someone, I didn't think about them in pluses and minuses.

Like, obv some baseline things had to be in place though.

Dunno, sounds like you married your ex w your brain. ;|

My brain definitely was part of the decision-making process. Not the only part, though.

[Adam Strange]

@Adam Strange
I don't know if you ppl think like this because its part of your culture or because its part of your type/quadra values or doesn't have anything to do with any of that, but it seems to me like you think in relationships and marriage as if you were doing a business or acquiring a product.

@Ragdoll Lynx, I'm sure you will agree that all close relationships are between equals, or between people who trade things of equal value. I'll bet that you've never dated a homeless guy, or a criminal just out of jail, even though there are probably a few available male IEE's living on the edge of society who would like to meet you and your savings account.

Why have you not done this? Because the "numbers" that denominate his good and bad characteristics sum up to a much lower number than the sum of your "numbers". Is he tall? Ten points. Handsome? Twelve points. Wanted for armed robbery? Minus twenty points. Plays loud music late at night while entertaining his screaming drug customers? Minus thirty points. PhD? Plus eight points. And so on.

Like if such way of viewing relationships assure you a "good purchase" or something like that, and in the moment your "product" doesn't work as you expected you just throw it out. I don't think that seeing relationships or ppl as products, goods or things is going to improve your experience in that area or reduce problems, I tend to think that its just going to increase them.

Actually, when I first asked the SLI out, I thought she was a secretary. She said she worked for the University, and she looked so decorative that I assumed she was some professor's secretary. After a few dates, I found out that she was a Senior Systems Analyst in charge of a team of programmers and was making as much as I was. At that point, I told her that we were paying equally on our dates.

As for abandoning her when she didn't "work" as expected, when she got breast cancer and the University fired her for costing too much, I supported her without a doubt or a question until she got better and didn't need me any more. And when she moved out, I stayed faithful for years, trying to get her back. I never considered divorce as an option. Not for many years, until it finally became clear to me that she was happier living away from me.

I hope you are never in the position where your husband moves out and doesn't tell you if he is coming back, but if you are, consider how long you will wait for him. One year? Two? Five? Ten? Twenty? Remember, you can't see other men during this time, because you are married. Nor can you take money from him, because your bank accounts are separate. But now he is out there, running up debts that you are legally responsible for, because you are married. He can do whatever he wants, and you get to live by yourself, on whatever you can earn, and you sometimes get these bills in the mail for things you didn't buy.

No, I don't exactly abandon the people I commit to just because they hit some bumps on the road. But when a person wants to leave, I won't stand in their way.

[Number 9 large]

Lol, @End, thanks for that.

It is weird that you mentioned the requirement that a woman be a good mother. That was exactly the main criterion that I used in determining whether or not a woman has long-term potential.

When I met my ex-wife, she had several pluses and minuses.
The pluses were that she was intelligent, beautiful, thin, had a good work ethic, had fantastic taste in clothes and furnishings, and I thought she would make a good mother.

Minuses were that she wasn’t my “type”, she had had several rich BF’s before we met and none of them wanted to marry her, her family was a mess, she was kind of cold and remote, and she had a loud, weird laugh.

All of the negatives were overruled by the fact that I thought that she’d make an excellent mother. And she did.

Maybe this is a Gamma thing, I don’t know.

I’ve dated lots of women who don’t meet this criterion, or who don’t meet it in a way that I agree with. It’s not the only criterion, but it’s a big one.

Seems like a baby boomer kind of thinking in choosing a partner. Im pretty sure my dad thought kind of the same way about my ESE mom

[Sol]

Like if such way of viewing relationships assure you a "good purchase" or something like that, and in the moment your "product" doesn't work as you expected you just throw it out.

Knowledge of types and other info affecting relations helps to make reasonable choices to rise chances on good result. If to use this info correctly. The main problem of today - wrong types (>50% of mistakes by today methods, based on average match <20%); the second - how some people are naive that all may be good without significant efforts.

When you deal with a human, when you by your reason understand it has good potential for good relations having good type - following the reason, you'll be making more efforts for relations, where hard parts exist always. You'll not throw it out easily but will keep harder when there is good type.
While when there is bad type - you'll throw as anything what you understand is bad and there is better to pay your attention. Jung's type is very significant to have friendship and hence good love in marriages (besides (semi)dual and mb activator - all other types are significantly more boring and worse). You may take it into account or to ignore, - this will affect chances on having for what it helps and efforts you'll need to have that.

Also. The mistake would be to think that good IR mean no problems. Or that Jung types is anything what is important in people. Even from theory point - duals have issues with weak functions of each other. You'll easily notice and never like idiocy in your strong regions, you may be tolerate at best and forgive it as that human studies (instead of negativism with different values) and because that human gives you good to compensate problems with him. It's same like with kids - you tolerate their weakness and study them to become better. It's what duals have - treat each other as kids, meanwhile geting support from each other as teachers/parrents. Duality helps with having love, but it's not relations without problems even from types point. Also to have duality does not mean - it's all will happen good just because it may to happen good - it will need your efforts to care about each other alike about anyone, but this will be in more natural way for you - as you want to care about people by ego functions and want to be cared in your superid. Plus better emotions to each other and better emotional state in such relations, as such people inspire it.

> I don't think that seeing relationships or ppl as products, goods or things is going to improve your experience in that area or reduce problems, I tend to think that its just going to increase them.

Having F type you defend the choice based on your strong functions - to what you've adopted, your trust and where you are more assured. The choice of irrational emotions. Also Ne based choices related to psychology is not what fits good to what you'd like by your ESI type - you are predisposed to be more negative to accept this, to do not trust - as it's your weak region and nonvalued.

Jung's types is one of significant factors for good relations which you may take it into account by your reason to pay more attention on people better for you. You'd could to use other info by the same way - to choose among people with IQ not lesser than average, for example. I doubt this would increase problems for people who'd did this.
By instincs people prefer the ones with close mind abbilities. But you may do the same choice by your reason too.
By same instincts (IR effects work irrationally) people prefer the ones with good IR. The problem is - those are not often near you long enough to appear feelings to them. Unlike with similar IQ when you work and study together often, duality types tend to be random or in other regions of works. People are limited to have near the ones with duality types. The reason may help them - to show those people. And then you may choose among them by other traits and your instincs as in common. To meet IRL and have a talk, to see videos/pictures in Internet, to communicate for some monthes to understand interesting human better in case you've liked him, etc. - to act by common ways. It would be a cooperation of your reason and instincts.

There are meeting/marriage services. They have initial info you see to decide is a human interesting for you. Jung's type is another trait which is useful to add there. It may help with having friendship and love feelings between people as those may support each other much. It may help having more of stable and happy pairs. To bring more of love. Of long relations with deep love feelings. And lesser of short relations based on sexual passion or emotionally not good relations based on material interests, social duties.

Near me lives a marriage pair of SEE woman and ILI man. It seems the only duality pair I know personally. They have good relations for all life, from known to me. I see them often together as they seem to have friendship and want to do together as much as possibly. They live for long (both are >70 yo) as good emotions helps with health. They care about each other tenderly, may make gifts to support each other emotionally alike they have new relations. It's cute.
Not always duals will have this, as it's one of factors. But chances to have good relations will be significanly higher among them. The reason may help to find those people. To help geting good long relations.

If you'll be lucky to get mutual feelings with (semi)dual - you'll understand what types may give to you. Some dating service with correct types would help to understand importance of types quickly - just meet with a few and talk, try friendly or closer relations. People would got a possibility to decide are types important for them on own experience, and then decide to take them into account or not. I'm rather sure almost anyone would prefer to take types into account having that experience.

[Mila]

@Adam Strange

I'm sure you will agree that all close relationships are between equals, or between people who trade things of equal value. I'll bet that you've never dated a homeless guy, or a criminal just out of jail, even though there are probably a few available male IEE's living on the edge of society who would like to meet you and your savings account.

I rarely see ppl as an "equal" (not that they are less, just like there's no way to even measure, standardize or estimate that), so there's not much compatibility in all areas with most of ppl (and like how is it going to happen with a dual when you are almost opposites according theory?), and for the second part of the sentence is very different, I like ppl who value things the same way as I do so we can have some mutual understanding, not that we trade things of equal value, that's very different. I don't see exchange as the base of relationships, that's just mere convenience, and there is more than convenience, there is sympathy, a je ne sais quoi or mere love. But I'm p sx and you are j, for sure.

Maybe Gulenko is right when he says that Gamma is a the quadra of capitalism while Delta is the true "moral" quadra. For the rest Adam, yeah, f*** homeless ppl and criminals, they don't deserve love, better for them if they just die, who would ever want to love them <---sarcasm


I'm not going to even give you details about my personal life or my checkbook balance, you are just circling around the same stuff and I think all of that is secondary, but you are totally wrong in your assumptions about me or about how the rest of the ppl (probably the most) works in such area. Plus, stuff as "criminality" or the reasons of poverty are relative and individual. That's why I think that evaluating ppl by those traits is more often than not prejudice, and you are basically saying that ppl has no potential to change. Each case is independent. For example, there are countries where belonging to certain religion makes you a criminal.

Anyway, I was trying to say to you that everything means sacrifice of some sort, or investment or risk, if you get it better…not if the "numbers match" or not or if the checklist is half full or half empty, because you are talking about people, not things, and you simply can't manage ppl as if they are numbers or things or a list of plus and minuses. I just wanted to say that if you see relationships as an exchange is not very different from an arranged marriage, and I don't think it's beneficial to see ppl as objects even if at first it looks like its going to make things easier. I think it would actually make difficult to understand ppl and seek for improvement in yourself and your relationship. But I'm not judging you and I think everybody is free to do things as they wish, I'm just saying that seeing ppl as assests and doing the maths could give the illusion of convenience and equity, but in fact it could be that you are just missing the best part of it all, which is love. In the opposite case, (if you just look for convenience) I think an arranged marriage or a sex doll would be a better option for a partner, because ppl requires an effort and any relationship is probably going to take not just a part but all from you. That's the way love is.

Btw, in all honesty, do you want me to give opinions or moralize you about your marriage? I think it would be rather disrespectful if I give you my opinion about it, plus, its not like I know how it was or not, I don't even have a way to opine objectively about it. I dont even know you, I wasn't there and I bet your ex has her version too. You don't have a way to do it about my personal life either. So lets put that aside.
So you don't need to be defensive, I'm just giving my opinion about how you see relationships and why I think its not very adequate, realistic or practical. The throw ppl away is not an accusation, is deduction from the same idea you are proposing (treat marriage/ppl/relationships as transactions based on material equality or social status, in such way, when equivalence is lost by extended period of time, the relation breaks, not saying that you did this, remember that I was talking about your present view not your past experiences). Lets put the idea on different example, if a woman marriages with a man because of his money, what will happen if he lose all of his money and he can't get it back? Probably the women is going to leave him.

[Mila]

@Sol

You are not T type you don't even understand what I say because of your weak logic. I'm in good IR but you can't read nor write english, neither learn it because your obvious F type, weak in T regions which makes hard for you to learn anything. I'm also married and I'm not asking for advice, you should use your own advice, you need it more.

[Sol]

You are not T type you don't even understand what I say because of your weak logic

I've read a part, not the whole context. So mb I've missed something important.
I more wanted to express some thoughts. I hope some of them were useful.

I see you've changed the profile type to conflictor (EIE -> SLI). Taking into account that you know about types for monthes this extreme case points on bad self-understanding by N and bad theory understanding with bad its application by weak F.
Aramas did such change (IEE -> LSI), and ESI seems among possible for him.
The other known (by video) ESI typed by good test himself to ILE.

My familiar ESI typed herself to IEE (3 years) -> EII (1 year) -> ILI (today dream). She even has offenced strongly when I've said she has S type and commented S traits in her as arguments (for example, she's stubborn and aggressive in establishing relations), on what she've noted alike "you are rude. and mb N type as described my traits correctly" (sigh, this did not helped anyway to assure her in S type). It's expected from Se types to perceive critics in Ne region as something offencing. Recently I've got 3 monthes ban just for writing explanations for her that ILI is not her type (on socioforum it's forbidden to tell people their real types when they write bs in profiles). For example, she manually for many hours did a calculation of opinions for different types about one human in that's human's typing thread - hard manual work and even without good reasons as there also was a voting poll for the type lol - what is nonsense to do for base N types, but for *SI is a possible way to relax by a concentration on such. She's also clearly emotional one, not boring ILIs. She likes moralization teaching of others alike you - stubbornly did that on me and that ended in my feelings to her lol. My suggestive and unconscious region kept that her influence hiden for some monthes, then at 1st gave me friendly attraction to her and after 2-3 weeks as she's attractive and nice girl - more of feelings. I started to express to her my feelings and being also stubborn J-S type did that despite her negative reactions for monthes. I'm not sure, but this could arise mutual feelings to me in her (partly because of our IR effects) what she may keep partly in unconsciousness and hide from me due to situation and my m... not the cutest character - she may affraid to have that to me a little. Mb someday she'll say something about that, in case there is what to say or was. She talked rather rude with me recently, expressed bad emotions to me, - she's not so indifferent how could to be, she may resist by this to good what is in her to me.

ESI behave funny in the typology. I like your progress due to +1 correct dichotomy. The next I expect you'll understand having F, but not T and mb write SEI in the profile. T types, and more P-T do not press outside of own deals and close people by moralizations alike you did recently. You mb attracted sexually to I*E, but as friends L*E you should like much more.

[para]

@Sol
I think you're thinking of @Luminous Lynx. Similar names and avatars.

[Sol]

I think you're thinking of @Luminous Lynx. Similar names and avatars.

you are right. all those Lynxs look the same

[Myst]

As for the misguided attack on Adam - just because Adam may use his rationality in choosing a partner, it doesn't follow that he would not put effort into the relationship itself.

@Adam Strange I think you got Pragma love strong See here: http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t..._Forms_of_Love

[Myst]

My familiar ESI typed herself to IEE (3 years) -> EII (1 year) -> ILI (today dream). She even has offenced strongly when I've said she has S type and commented S traits in her as arguments (for example, she's stubborn and aggressive in establishing relations), on what she've noted alike "you are rude. and mb N type as described my traits correctly" (sigh, this did not helped anyway to assure her in S type). It's expected from Se types to perceive critics in Ne region as something offencing. Recently I've got 3 monthes ban just for writing explanations for her that ILI is not her type (on socioforum it's forbidden to tell people their real types when they write bs in profiles). For example, she manually for many hours did a calculation of opinions for different types about one human in that's human's typing thread - hard manual work and even without good reasons as there also was a voting poll for the type lol - what is nonsense to do for base N types, but for *SI is a possible way to relax by a concentration on such. She's also clearly emotional one, not boring ILIs. She likes moralization teaching of others alike you - stubbornly did that on me and that ended in my feelings to her lol. My suggestive and unconscious region kept that her influence hiden for some monthes, then at 1st gave me friendly attraction to her and after 2-3 weeks as she's attractive and nice girl - more of feelings. I started to express to her my feelings and being also stubborn J-S type did that despite her negative reactions for monthes. I'm not sure, but this could arise mutual feelings to me in her (partly because of our IR effects) what she may keep partly in unconsciousness and hide from me due to situation and my m... not the cutest character - she may affraid to have that to me a little. Mb someday she'll say something about that, in case there is what to say or was. She talked rather rude with me recently, expressed bad emotions to me, - she's not so indifferent how could to be, she may resist by this to good what is in her to me.

Wow Socionics ---> wishful thinking

[Mila]

I didn't attacked you @Adam Strange, was just commenting on the issue because seen you mentioning the same stuff bunch of times.
Just she is paranoid as LSIs usually are. but k, its not like she matters at all. Mb she will never learn to respect boundaries.

[Mila]

@Sol,

I never typed EIE or something different, you are confusing me, duh. Plus, mine is a cat breed, lynx is a lynx. Its not even hard to distinguish.

[Myst]

I didn't attacked you @Adam Strange, was just commenting on the issue because seen you mentioning the same stuff bunch of times.
Just she is paranoid as LSIs usually are. but k, its not like she matters at all. Mb she will never learn to respect boundaries.

Now in this moment I am *not* respecting your shitty boundaries because you've displayed *disrespect* about me, thus about my boundaries as well. Fuck off.

[Adam Strange]

As for the misguided attack on Adam - just because Adam may use his rationality in choosing a partner, it doesn't follow that he would not put effort into the relationship itself.

@Adam Strange I think you got Pragma love strong See here: http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t..._Forms_of_Love

Hi, @Myst.

I read all of the descriptions of love in your link, and I agree that I probably come closest to the Pragma form of love. Except you'd have to blend that in with Stupidia, which is the form of love that keeps you married when your SLI partner has left for greener pastures.

I was talking to my IEE bookkeeper today, and she is about 18 years into a marriage to an ILE and is counting the days until her separation and divorce, which will be when her youngest goes off to college. I asked her what happened, and she said that she married him because she expected that they would both grow up after they got married, bought a house, and had kids, but it turned out that only she grew up. He, on the other hand, wants a Mommy who will find his underpants for him and remind him when it's time to eat.
She said that the warning signs were there from the first. They threw a dinner party for some friends, and she first cleaned his messy apartment, bought the food, prepared the meal, served the meal, and then cleaned off the table and after the guests had gone, did the dishes. When she complained that she felt like he had done nothing and she was just serving him, he told her "I like to be served", at which point she blew up. She married him anyway, so, she says, she has only herself to blame.
She also told me that he forgets their kid's birthdays and is never there for holidays. She said that this used to really hurt her, but she now just gives him exactly what he gave her for her birthday. This year, she said, he got a text saying "Happy Birthday", because that's exactly what she got from him last year. But, she went on to say, she buys herself really nice presents.
She was also very interested in seeing how Match.com works, because she's planning ahead.

So, I guess, Pragma isn't just a Gamma thing.

*EDIT*
I should add that the IEE told me that the ILE has many, many admirable traits. She just feels that he needs someone to look after him and take care of him in order to bring them out and make him happy, and she just can't do that adequately.

[Adam Strange]

I didn't attacked you @Adam Strange, was just commenting on the issue because seen you mentioning the same stuff bunch of times.

No problem, @Ragdoll Lynx. You just stated your view of my reporting, and that's fine, even if I disagree with it. I don't see myself very well, and I'm always interested in learning what other people see. I've actually learned a lot about myself this way.

I also think that it is almost impossible to get a complete picture of someone else's life, even if you are right there watching it, to say nothing of hearing only half the story from one of the participants.

[Lord Pixel]

Hi, @Myst.

I read all of the descriptions of love in your link, and I agree that I probably come closest to the Pragma form of love. Except you'd have to blend that in with Stupidia, which is the form of love that keeps you married when your SLI partner has left for greener pastures.

I was talking to my IEE bookkeeper today, and she is about 18 years into a marriage to an ILE and is counting the days until her separation and divorce, which will be when her youngest goes off to college. I asked her what happened, and she said that she married him because she expected that they would both grow up after they got married, bought a house, and had kids, but it turned out that only she grew up. He, on the other hand, wants a Mommy who will find his underpants for him and remind him when it's time to eat.
She said that the warning signs were there from the first. They threw a dinner party for some friends, and she first cleaned his messy apartment, bought the food, prepared the meal, served the meal, and then cleaned off the table and after the guests had gone, did the dishes. When she complained that she felt like he had done nothing and she was just serving him, he told her "I like to be served", at which point she blew up. She married him anyway, so, she says, she has only herself to blame.
She also told me that he forgets their kid's birthdays and is never there for holidays. She said that this used to really hurt her, but she now just gives him exactly what he gave her for her birthday. This year, she said, he got a text saying "Happy Birthday", because that's exactly what she got from him last year. But, she went on to say, she buys herself really nice presents.
She was also very interested in seeing how Match.com works, because she's planning ahead.

So, I guess, Pragma isn't just a Gamma thing.

That whole thing makes sense. She literally lays out the Si future she expected but did not get. I imagine most people walk down the isle with a DS expectation like that.

I heard a saying that says we walk down the isle with 6 people. Who we are, who we think we are, who we think they are, who they are, who they think they are, and who they think we are. Somehow I think there is some socionics in that lol.

That story though kinda reminds me when I dated an ESI, it felt like both of us had a hard time being the responsible one. I remember once I said to her "One of us has to do the thinking" when I felt like we were about to do something without really thinking about it, and I thought she would take offense to that but she said " You're right." and was willing to take a back seat lol. Essentially what she wanted me to do was up and move from where I was to where she was purely because of how I felt about her, and she wanted me to go with that feeling and uproot, and I argued that we can't just do big moves like that just based on how we feel. I could feel the imminent danger if we both amplified our natural ways like that, doing things purely based on our feelings, that really made me aware of the lack of balance we both had, felt like there was danger on the other side of our indulgence.

I guess that's what happens in kindred relations, you feel so connected in the beginning because someone speaks your language, and it's all fun and games, but later down the line once the honeymoon phase dies in the face of real life problems and struggles you can feel the lack in your self, in your partner, the load you have to carry, or are putting off, and you can feel the lack in your lives, once all the fun and games are over.

I know an fLIE/mLSE power couple and I have no idea what that's like, perhaps being so efficient that you could potentially lose the human factor and roll over people like the obstacles they look like? lol. They seem like a nice pair and don't seem like that at all though. Husband has a hard time trying to get his wife to be subservient though, and wife has a slightly hard time not speaking over her husband and getting him juice when he asks lol.

[Adam Strange]

That whole thing makes sense. She literally lays out the Si future she expected but did not get. I imagine most people walk down the isle with a DS expectation like that.

I heard a saying that says we walk down the isle with 6 people. Who we are, who we think we are, who we think they are, who they are, who they think they are, and who they think we are. Somehow I think there is some socionics in that lol.

That story though kinda reminds me when I dated an ESI, it felt like both of us had a hard time being the responsible one. I remember once I said to her "One of us has to do the thinking" when I felt like we were about to do something without really thinking about it, and I thought she would take offense to that but she said " You're right." and was willing to take a back seat lol. Essentially what she wanted me to do was up and move from where I was to where she was purely because of how I felt about her, and she wanted me to go with that feeling and uproot, and I argued that we can't just do big moves like that just based on how we feel. I could feel the imminent danger if we both amplified our natural ways like that, doing things purely based on our feelings, that really made me aware of the lack of balance we both had, felt like there was danger on the other side of our indulgence.

I guess that's what happens in kindred relations, you feel so connected in the beginning because someone speaks your language, and it's all fun and games, but later down the line once the honeymoon phase dies in the face of real life problems and struggles you can feel the lack in your self, in your partner, the load you have to carry, or are putting off, and you can feel the lack in your lives, once all the fun and games are over.

I know an fLIE/mLSE power couple and I have no idea what that's like, perhaps being so efficient that you could potentially lose the human factor and roll over people like the obstacles they look like? lol. They seem like a nice pair and don't seem like that at all though. Husband has a hard time trying to get his wife to be subservient though, and wife has a slightly hard time not speaking over her husband and getting him juice when he asks lol.

@Lord Pixel, this is a really constructive post for me right now, in regard to what you said about ESI's. I have recently, slowly been coming to the conclusion that ESI's really do operate on the basis of how they feel about things.

I know, I know, all the books say that's what ESI's do. They are Fi-doms, right? I just have a hard time believing that someone could really, actually be that way. It's like someone tells you that some people can read minds. Right, buddy.

I've known several male ESI's for many years, and while I get along with them easily and have interacted with them on hundreds if not thousands of occasions, I just never thought that they were MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THINGS, FOR GOD'S SAKE.

But in the past couple of years, I've been observing female ESI's very, very closely. And it fits. They actually are basing decisions on how they feel about me. And they aren't doing long range planning. It's just here-in-the-moment, how-do-I-feel-right-now stuff.

There is a female ESI artist whom I've known for about five years, and I'm embarrassed to say that my feelings for her are very strong, Embarrassed, because she's 25. (Goddammit, Adam, get a grip.) I'm happy around her and I can't tell her how I feel because if I did, she'd probably start seeing me as a pervert Uncle. So I don't tell her anything, and she always keeps at arm's length, even though I can tell that she likes being around me, too. For Duality reasons. She just gets observably happy when I'm around.
She came over to my house to take some pictures of her artwork for a website she's making, and as we were moving a table, my arm brushed hers and I glanced at her and she had an inner warm, secret smile on her face, and I thought, what the hell does that mean? It means she's liking me right now, in the moment, without regard to the future. To me, this is both insane and everything I've ever wanted. She told me her work schedule is eight days on, six days off, and it is exhausting her, and I told her she needs to find something more balanced, and she agreed, and then she flew out the door for Colorado, because that was the next thing on her list to do. >_<

As for how an LIE and an LSE Kindred get along, I work with an LSE and he's smart, reliable, and after I got past my associated feelings about my LSE mother, I have to say that when he and I are talking business and engineering, we absolutely click. It is like talking to myself, only he has a slightly different agenda. I'm all about covering all the future bases, and he's all about building something that works not great but adequately and reliably for the customer. We totally understand what the other person is saying. We don't ever talk about feelings, because we don't exactly have any, and I think we both know that.
As for the hierarchy, he works at my direction, and he accepts that, unless he's working on a project that I'm not involved in, in which case he ignores me. I don't want him to be subservient, I want him to be him with all his talents, making the best decisions he can, with occasional input from my future planning. In turn, I bow to him when he talks about making things simple enough to deliver to the customer on time. I think I'm tuned to that because ESI's tend to do that, too.

[Lord Pixel]

@Lord Pixel, this is a really constructive post for me right now, in regard to what you said about ESI's. I have recently, slowly been coming to the conclusion that ESI's really do operate on the basis of how they feel about things.



I know, I know, all the books say that's what ESI's do. They are Fi-doms, right? I just have a hard time believing that someone could really, actually be that way. It's like someone tells you that some people can read minds. Right, buddy.

I've known several male ESI's for many years, and while I get along with them easily and have interacted with them on hundreds if not thousands of occasions, I just never thought that they were MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THINGS, FOR GOD'S SAKE.

Damn right !!!!!!!!! What's so weird about that? lol.
That had me dying.

Chocolate or vanilla? Vanilla. Because I like it better.

There is a female ESI artist whom I've known for about five years, and I'm embarrassed to say that my feelings for her are very strong, Embarrassed, because she's 25. (Goddammit, Adam, get a grip.) I'm happy around her and I can't tell her how I feel because if I did, she'd probably start seeing me as a pervert Uncle. So I don't tell her anything, and she always keeps at arm's length, even though I can tell that she likes being around me, too. For Duality reasons. She just gets observably happy when I'm around.
She came over to my house to take some pictures of her artwork for a website she's making, and as we were moving a table, my arm brushed hers and I glanced at her and she had an inner warm, secret smile on her face, and I thought, what the hell does that mean? It means she's liking me right now, in the moment, without regard to the future. To me, this is both insane and everything I've ever wanted. She told me her work schedule is eight days on, six days off, and it is exhausting her, and I told her she needs to find something more balanced, and she agreed, and then she flew out the door for Colorado, because that was the next thing on her list to do. >_<

I felt those words lol. But yea I never considered that it's just she just likes you in the moment and that's it and nothing beyond that moment, that is very different.
Both insane and everything you've ever wanted that's great.

Ah so just doing what's the next thing on the list, is that also Ne PoLR, I feel like it is, the lack of alternatives and the direct Se doing what's right in front of youness.

As for how an LIE and an LSE Kindred get along, I work with an LSE and he's smart, reliable, and after I got past my associated feelings about my LSE mother, I have to say that when he and I are talking business and engineering, we absolutely click. It is like talking to myself, only he has a slightly different agenda. I'm all about covering all the future bases, and he's all about building something that works not great but adequately and reliably for the customer. We totally understand what the other person is saying. We don't ever talk about feelings, because we don't exactly have any, and I think we both know that.
As for the hierarchy, he works at my direction, and he accepts that, unless he's working on a project that I'm not involved in, in which case he ignores me. I don't want him to be subservient, I want him to be him with all his talents, making the best decisions he can, with occasional input from my future planning. In turn, I bow to him when he talks about making things simple enough to deliver to the customer on time. I think I'm tuned to that because ESI's tend to do that, too.

Yea I think the issue is LSE is like I am the man and want's LIE to be the woman but it's requires her to bite her tongue.

[Myst]

@Lord Pixel, this is a really constructive post for me right now, in regard to what you said about ESI's. I have recently, slowly been coming to the conclusion that ESI's really do operate on the basis of how they feel about things.

I know, I know, all the books say that's what ESI's do. They are Fi-doms, right? I just have a hard time believing that someone could really, actually be that way. It's like someone tells you that some people can read minds. Right, buddy.

I've known several male ESI's for many years, and while I get along with them easily and have interacted with them on hundreds if not thousands of occasions, I just never thought that they were MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THINGS, FOR GOD'S SAKE.

But in the past couple of years, I've been observing female ESI's very, very closely. And it fits. They actually are basing decisions on how they feel about me. And they aren't doing long range planning. It's just here-in-the-moment, how-do-I-feel-right-now stuff.

Yah it took me years too to truly understand the original definition of Feeling (before moving on to better frameworks)

As for how an LIE and an LSE Kindred get along, I work with an LSE and he's smart, reliable, and after I got past my associated feelings about my LSE mother, I have to say that when he and I are talking business and engineering, we absolutely click. It is like talking to myself, only he has a slightly different agenda. I'm all about covering all the future bases, and he's all about building something that works not great but adequately and reliably for the customer. We totally understand what the other person is saying. We don't ever talk about feelings, because we don't exactly have any, and I think we both know that.

You both do have feelings just in part controlled by rationality and in part suppressed (by the same rationality). And in both cases they play a part in decision-making.

But I guess you were joking anyway

[Samuel Leopold]

There is a female ESI artist whom I've known for about five years, and I'm embarrassed to say that my feelings for her are very strong, Embarrassed, because she's 25. (Goddammit, Adam, get a grip.)

There may not be anything inherently wrong with this. My dad was 39 years old, the same age I am now, when he and my mom got married. My mom was 21 at that time.

[Adam Strange]

There may not be anything inherently wrong with this. My dad was 39 years old, the same age I am now, when he and my mom got married. My mom was 21 at that time.

Do you attribute any problems they may have had to this age difference?

[Samuel Leopold]

They weren't exactly angels playing the harp, but is anybody? Whatever problems there were, the age difference didn't cause them. My dad was ILE, by the way, and my mom is ESE. If there were any problems that went beyond raised voices, it must have been before I was born.

[End]

Lol, @End, thanks for that.

It is weird that you mentioned the requirement that a woman be a good mother. That was exactly the main criterion that I used in determining whether or not a woman has long-term potential.

When I met my ex-wife, she had several pluses and minuses.
The pluses were that she was intelligent, beautiful, thin, had a good work ethic, had fantastic taste in clothes and furnishings, and I thought she would make a good mother.

Minuses were that she wasn’t my “type”, she had had several rich BF’s before we met and none of them wanted to marry her, her family was a mess, she was kind of cold and remote, and she had a loud, weird laugh.

All of the negatives were overruled by the fact that I thought that she’d make an excellent mother. And she did.

Maybe this is a Gamma thing, I don’t know.

I’ve dated lots of women who don’t meet this criterion, or who don’t meet it in a way that I agree with. It’s not the only criterion, but it’s a big one.

I'm glad to hear that it's one of your primary concerns. Anyone with half a brain ought to see every date as the first step in a long term process. The goal of dating is to find a wife/husband. That implies children. Thus, one should always ask themselves if their date would make a good father/mother. We gammas are more prone to this line of thought thanks to and dominance. At least on our end of it. The and end comes to the same conclusion, but through different methods and channels I'd wager.

@Adam Strange
I don't know if you ppl think like this because its part of your culture or because its part of your type/quadra values or doesn't have anything to do with any of that, but it seems to me like you think in relationships and marriage as if you were doing a business or acquiring a product. Like if such way of viewing relationships assure you a "good purchase" or something like that, and in the moment your "product" doesn't work as you expected you just throw it out. I don't think that seeing relationships or ppl as products, goods or things is going to improve your experience in that area or reduce problems, I tend to think that its just going to increase them.

Gamma maxim #1: Life is a game. A game. Furthermore, you have no way to not play it. Given that indisputable fact, might as well play it to win. People are not products per se, and while you can adopt a strategy that assumes that (and it does work), well, people like me know that particular strategy works right up until it does not. And dear lord, do you not want to be the fucker who used that strategy right up until they learned that lesson the hard way.

Also, unlike what you seem to think, the "transaction" is not sterile or robotic in our minds. If I offer you my "heart", for example, it is both a calculated risk and an earnestly hopeful plea that you'll accept. I give you all of me, in exchange for all of you. It's only fair yet there is a subtle component to that transaction. Trust. In making that offer, I've implicitly admitted that I trust you completely in all things. Do you return/are you worthy of that trust? The trust of a very, very paranoid person whom you've somehow convinced to do the dumbest thing they can possibly imagine in the hopes that they really were/are wrong about you?

Food for thought my essentially anonymous friend...

[sbbds]

@Ragdoll Lynx, I'm sure you will agree that all close relationships are between equals, or between people who trade things of equal value. I'll bet that you've never dated a homeless guy, or a criminal just out of jail, even though there are probably a few available male IEE's living on the edge of society who would like to meet you and your savings account.

Why have you not done this? Because the "numbers" that denominate his good and bad characteristics sum up to a much lower number than the sum of your "numbers". Is he tall? Ten points. Handsome? Twelve points. Wanted for armed robbery? Minus twenty points. Plays loud music late at night while entertaining his screaming drug customers? Minus thirty points. PhD? Plus eight points. And so on.



Actually, when I first asked the SLI out, I thought she was a secretary. She said she worked for the University, and she looked so decorative that I assumed she was some professor's secretary. After a few dates, I found out that she was a Senior Systems Analyst in charge of a team of programmers and was making as much as I was. At that point, I told her that we were paying equally on our dates.

As for abandoning her when she didn't "work" as expected, when she got breast cancer and the University fired her for costing too much, I supported her without a doubt or a question until she got better and didn't need me any more. And when she moved out, I stayed faithful for years, trying to get her back. I never considered divorce as an option. Not for many years, until it finally became clear to me that she was happier living away from me.

I hope you are never in the position where your husband moves out and doesn't tell you if he is coming back, but if you are, consider how long you will wait for him. One year? Two? Five? Ten? Twenty? Remember, you can't see other men during this time, because you are married. Nor can you take money from him, because your bank accounts are separate. But now he is out there, running up debts that you are legally responsible for, because you are married. He can do whatever he wants, and you get to live by yourself, on whatever you can earn, and you sometimes get these bills in the mail for things you didn't buy.

No, I don't exactly abandon the people I commit to just because they hit some bumps on the road. But when a person wants to leave, I won't stand in their way.

I think @Ragdoll Cat 's main takeaway for you on this, which I agree with, is that you need to work on trusting and following your heart, even if it seems difficult or unnatural for you. Strong words for an Fi polr I know, but your heart has a way of balancing out pluses and minuses too, in a way which your brain can't, and it's actually the more beneficial thing to follow when it comes to choosing your relationships with people (...especially in your case, since you hardly ever practice doing it). I don't think she meant to make you think you did a bad job before, as you were doing the best you could then. I have to go through a similar process when it comes to trusting my intuition and "letting go" on control of "physical reality", to access unconscious knowledge and strength. It requires you to let go and entertain some risk, but obviously growth is uncomfortable. It shouldn't be this mindblowing thing that some people make decisions primarily based on how they feel. When it comes to people, they're generally the ones doing it right, and you should also learn to access that part of yourself a bit more.

[Singu]

Oh wow, looking for partners that are potentially good fathers/mothers, that's a trait that the majority of people don't look for...

Also, unlike what you seem to think, the "transaction" is not sterile or robotic in our minds. If I offer you my "heart", for example, it is both a calculated risk and an earnestly hopeful plea that you'll accept. I give you all of me, in exchange for all of you. It's only fair yet there is a subtle component to that transaction. Trust. In making that offer, I've implicitly admitted that I trust you completely in all things. Do you return/are you worthy of that trust? The trust of a very, very paranoid person whom you've somehow convinced to do the dumbest thing they can possibly imagine in the hopes that they really were/are wrong about you?

Food for thought my essentially anonymous friend...

I think the point that she was making is that relationships are about taking unknown risks of sacrifices. You're not even going to think, "If I do this, then what am I going to get in return?", or "Damn, that pay-off didn't work". It's a choice that you're going to have to make. Choices I believe, that are based on beliefs and convictions.

[Myst]

Hm.

About this whole topic of trusting the heart. Actually I think there's a reason if it feels unnatural - precisely because it is, for some people. Sure it can do this "emotional experience bank" or whatever to call it, with checking the pluses and minuses, but for some people I don't think it's easily affordable to just run with that. Following the heart unconditionally for such people is very rarely an option. Because it involves more risk than for most other people.

I agree though eventually you cannot avoid risk, no matter how rational you try to be about the process when it comes to personal relationships.

I liked @End 's note on the risk and being all in and trust. I also do see it as an all or nothing thing ...

And @Singu yeah well, I agree about the risk but the emotional "give and take" of a relationship does still work in the way you say it does not, it's just less directly shown - eventually if the scores are not even enough, resentment and other negative feelings will build up in the heart and so on. So yes, it is still about "materialistic returns" in that way. It is unavoidable. Just like rational fairness and obligation is also an integral part of relationships. Relationships are not just "made of" feelings and emotions in this fashion. They would be unsustainable that way.

I overall kinda see where @Adam Strange gets seen too detached with trying to socionify all the relationship aspects. But I don't think he just thinks of the women as "wife material" or "not wife material". Just the feelings are not expressed as much but I'd imagine they are there alright.

[golden]

@Adam Strange
I don't know if you ppl think like this because its part of your culture or because its part of your type/quadra values or doesn't have anything to do with any of that, but it seems to me like you think in relationships and marriage as if you were doing a business or acquiring a product. Like if such way of viewing relationships assure you a "good purchase" or something like that, and in the moment your "product" doesn't work as you expected you just throw it out. I don't think that seeing relationships or ppl as products, goods or things is going to improve your experience in that area or reduce problems, I tend to think that its just going to increase them.

Adam uses this acquisitional and transactional language for relationships, but I don’t think it’s the norm even in the U.S.

[Adam Strange]

Hm.

About this whole topic of trusting the heart. Actually I think there's a reason if it feels unnatural - precisely because it is, for some people. Sure it can do this "emotional experience bank" or whatever to call it, with checking the pluses and minuses, but for some people I don't think it's easily affordable to just run with that. Following the heart unconditionally for such people is very rarely an option. Because it involves more risk than for most other people.

I agree though eventually you cannot avoid risk, no matter how rational you try to be about the process when it comes to personal relationships.

I liked @End 's note on the risk and being all in and trust. I also do see it as an all or nothing thing ...

And @Singu yeah well, I agree about the risk but the emotional "give and take" of a relationship does still work in the way you say it does not, it's just less directly shown - eventually if the scores are not even enough, resentment and other negative feelings will build up in the heart and so on. So yes, it is still about "materialistic returns" in that way. It is unavoidable. Just like rational fairness and obligation is also an integral part of relationships. Relationships are not just "made of" feelings and emotions in this fashion. They would be unsustainable that way.

I overall kinda see where @Adam Strange gets seen too detached with trying to socionify all the relationship aspects. But I don't think he just thinks of the women as "wife material" or "not wife material". Just the feelings are not expressed as much but I'd imagine they are there alright.

To quote an ESI to whom I told that I have no feelings, "There is a difference between not having feelings and not talking about them."

[Adam Strange]

Adam uses this acquisitional and transactional language for relationships, but I don’t think it’s the norm even in the U.S.

I agree that using acquisitional and transactional language for relationships is not the norm in the U.S. It is more customary to use flowery words and to proclaim undying love, etc., etc.

But somehow, I don't see too many short, fat, poor, and ignorant people marrying super intelligent, thin, rich movie stars, so I tend to believe that some transactional analysis is going on there somewhere, whether it is spoken of or not.

And as for any acquisitional aspects of my speech, I'd have to say that I, unlike those little Sweetheart candies, have never said to a woman "Be Mine". Lol.
One of the first music videos I posted on here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDUjeR01wnU) was Lesley Gore's "You Don't Own Me", a sentiment that I heartily agree with.

I tend to look at my GF's as equal partners. But wait, maybe calling them "equal" is transactional. I need to think about this.
Or not.

[Myst]

Adam uses this acquisitional and transactional language for relationships, but I don’t think it’s the norm even in the U.S.

I don't get why people get hung up on language use lol, it's pretty obvious Adam does have feelings just fine, he has talked about his struggles with them indirectly and sometimes even directly, and about his relationships, with things like attention for the partner etc.

Btw the talk or this way of thinking about "wife material" is pretty standard for older people in my country. It's maybe a bit old fashioned here but it's not abnormal or anything

So that's part of why I don't get hung up on it maybe lol

To quote an ESI to whom I told that I have no feelings, "There is a difference between not having feelings and not talking about them."

Yup

Also there is a difference between not having feelings vs just not seeing them, bc of suppression / low ability to process the feelings to have them show directly in a safe enough way.

I agree that using acquisitional and transactional language for relationships is not the norm in the U.S. It is more customary to use flowery words and to proclaim undying love, etc., etc.

Yah undying love then next day the person sobers up/cools off and then it's no longer undying love heh. An emotional ex bf of mine - IEI-Fe if you wanna socionify but eh - when I first met him (I talked with him online for a week before that), we started talking pretty soon about some emotional memories and at one point I got like, sad, sentimental like I never do and then he went like err he didn't confess his undying love for me but it was something close to that. So.... huh? (I ofc didn't take it seriously, I was like whatev but I figured he at least liked me so I was OK)

Sure I like flowery emotionz but only if actions support and prove their seriousness.

But somehow, I don't see too many short, fat, poor, and ignorant people marrying super intelligent, thin, rich movie stars, so I tend to believe that some transactional analysis is going on there somewhere, whether it is spoken of or not.

Subconsciously for most people or consciously for the golddiggers yah

And as for any acquisitional aspects of my speech, I'd have to say that I, unlike those little Sweetheart candies, have never said to a woman "Be Mine". Lol.
One of the first music videos I posted on here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDUjeR01wnU) was Lesley Gore's "You Don't Own Me", a sentiment that I heartily agree with.

I tend to look at my GF's as equal partners. But wait, maybe calling them "equal" is transactional. I need to think about this.
Or not.

Yepppp totally transactional.

[Singu]

And @Singu yeah well, I agree about the risk but the emotional "give and take" of a relationship does still work in the way you say it does not, it's just less directly shown - eventually if the scores are not even enough, resentment and other negative feelings will build up in the heart and so on. So yes, it is still about "materialistic returns" in that way. It is unavoidable. Just like rational fairness and obligation is also an integral part of relationships. Relationships are not just "made of" feelings and emotions in this fashion. They would be unsustainable that way.

I overall kinda see where @Adam Strange gets seen too detached with trying to socionify all the relationship aspects. But I don't think he just thinks of the women as "wife material" or "not wife material". Just the feelings are not expressed as much but I'd imagine they are there alright.

I think it comes across as distasteful if you apply "cost-and-benefit" analysis to human relationships.

So the argument goes that these things are happening under the veneer of emotions anyway, and people are just hiding these things with "nice" languages. But that's just pure hypocrisy, and everybody only has their own rational self-interest at heart. This seems like the doctrine of neoliberal economics applied to human relationships.

But if that were the case, then why would we even need feelings? It seems unlikely that feelings are just there to "grease the wheel" of human relations in a society.

Perhaps the reason for the distaste is because you need to understand each different individuals in their own right, in order to have human relationships. It's not like as if you can abstract away some kind of a "universal law" that can be applied to all relationships, as in "cost-and-benefit analysis". But the premise of cost-and-benefit analysis is the premise of only having your own rational self-interest at heart. Which makes one extremely self-centered.

It's doubtful that you apply cost-and-benefit analysis if you're say, raising children. Perhaps the reason why you care for children is not because you care about some benefit, but rather merely think that you should raise children (mainly because you understand the needs and wants of children, and understand how they're vulnerable and how they need adults). I mean of course, you may feel some emotional contentment in raising children. But people also sacrifice a great deal.

So perhaps the premise of raising children is not only because there is some benefit, but because you understand their needs, and you also understand that you can fulfill their needs.

[Mila]

I think @Ragdoll Cat 's main takeaway for you on this, which I agree with, is that you need to work on trusting and following your heart, even if it seems difficult or unnatural for you. Strong words for an Fi polr I know, but your heart has a way of balancing out pluses and minuses too, in a way which your brain can't, and it's actually the more beneficial thing to follow when it comes to choosing your relationships with people (...especially in your case, since you hardly ever practice doing it). I don't think she meant to make you think you did a bad job before, as you were doing the best you could then. I have to go through a similar process when it comes to trusting my intuition and "letting go" on control of "physical reality", to access unconscious knowledge and strength. It requires you to let go and entertain some risk, but obviously growth is uncomfortable. It shouldn't be this mindblowing thing that some people make decisions primarily based on how they feel. When it comes to people, they're generally the ones doing it right, and you should also learn to access that part of yourself a bit more.

There are feelings but also the organic nature of relationships. Seems kinda illusory to treat ppl or interpersonal relations as if transaction because ppl are ppl, they breathe, get old, dream, have feelings, have physical and psychological needs, etc. They are organic living entities with an independent mind and unique life path. If each one is more conscious and concerned about what they have to offer and give to this potential SO more than what they can take and how worthy or not is this other person, there would be more chance to successfully relating and less frustration.

[Adam Strange]

I don't think my relationship problems are due to my having inadequate feelings, or any great tendency to make the relationship transactional, or any desire on my part to "own" the other person or to control them. Rather, I think the root of my problems is that I have some narcissistic tendencies and I have the undesired prejudice that my partner will make my life great.

When I step back, I'd say that I do feel that my life is better when I have a partner (or when I'm around duals), but a partner can't fix what is wrong with my life. Only I can do that.

However, my assertion that people who initially get together to collaborate on projects or their lives will have roughly equal social and psychological "value" still stands. Humans cooperate best when they are roughly equal, but an individual's feelings can and do heavily weight the numbers, and if, for example, someone gets cancer and their objective numbers drop, that doesn't mean that their subjective value will change. We get attached to people. We care.

[sbbds]

There are feelings but also the organic nature of relationships. Seems kinda illusory to treat ppl or interpersonal relations as if transaction because ppl are ppl, they breathe, get old, dream, have feelings, have physical and psychological needs, etc. They are organic living entities with an independent mind and unique life path. If each one is more conscious and concerned about what they have to offer and give to this potential SO more than what they can take and how worthy or not is this other person, there would be more chance to successfully relating and less frustration.

Really well said, nice Ragdoll Cat!

I don't think my relationship problems are due to my having inadequate feelings, or any great tendency to make the relationship transactional, or any desire on my part to "own" the other person or to control them. Rather, I think the root of my problems is that I have some narcissistic tendencies and I have the undesired prejudice that my partner will make my life great.

When I step back, I'd say that I do feel that my life is better when I have a partner (or when I'm around duals), but a partner can't fix what is wrong with my life. Only I can do that.

However, my assertion that people who initially get together to collaborate on projects or their lives will have roughly equal social and psychological "value" still stands. Humans cooperate best when they are roughly equal, but an individual's feelings can and do heavily weight the numbers, and if, for example, someone gets cancer and their objective numbers drop, that doesn't mean that their subjective value will change. We get attached to people. We care.

I don't really see you as narcissistic or entitled, but I agree on the rest and am glad you know that.

It's interesting because I've been reflecting on the same things recently myself. I think people need to ask themselves if they're already doing everything in their power to improve their lives by themselves already, and have gotten all the basics down. I think waiting for a dual to give you basics is unreasonable. You need to find out how to do it all yourself first, or at least try, and then that's when life tends to bless you with people who make it a bit easier.

[Myst]

I think it comes across as distasteful if you apply "cost-and-benefit" analysis to human relationships.

It's not politically correct nowadays, I will give you that : p

But everyone does apply it sometimes, bc it's inevitable. You can't forever do things that just do not *work*, like, you can't be purely altruistic. As soon as you are not purely altruistic all the time, cost and benefit does get taken into account. E.g... you will gladly help someone with a favour that's easy for you to do: it really helps the person, so the benefit is good, but the cost is decently small to you.

So the argument goes that these things are happening under the veneer of emotions anyway, and people are just hiding these things with "nice" languages. But that's just pure hypocrisy, and everybody only has their own rational self-interest at heart. This seems like the doctrine of neoliberal economics applied to human relationships.

I don't really use pure neoliberal economics, maybe Adam does (tho' doubt it lol), I don't, my approach includes ideas on fairness a lot more than that.

To clarify again. I don't think that people only have the rational self-interest, no. That's there too though, bc it's also necessary to have that. Some put this as "take care of yourself then you will be able to take care of others too"

But if that were the case, then why would we even need feelings? It seems unlikely that feelings are just there to "grease the wheel" of human relations in a society.

I never intended to say they don't play an integral role too.

Perhaps the reason for the distaste is because you need to understand each different individuals in their own right, in order to have human relationships. It's not like as if you can abstract away some kind of a "universal law" that can be applied to all relationships, as in "cost-and-benefit analysis". But the premise of cost-and-benefit analysis is the premise of only having your own rational self-interest at heart. Which makes one extremely self-centered.

It's doubtful that you apply cost-and-benefit analysis if you're say, raising children. Perhaps the reason why you care for children is not because you care about some benefit, but rather merely think that you should raise children (mainly because you understand the needs and wants of children, and understand how they're vulnerable and how they need adults). I mean of course, you may feel some emotional contentment in raising children. But people also sacrifice a great deal.

So perhaps the premise of raising children is not only because there is some benefit, but because you understand their needs, and you also understand that you can fulfill their needs.

The universal laws are pretty general, the specifics beyond that will be individual sure.

And hm no, I never tried to see "cost-and-benefit analysis" in a vacuum like that

The thing is... I do include fairness in all this, idk about Adam, but for me it's like, I have self-interest but the other person is also respected so the "calculations" are made with that in mind. So no, using a sober rational approach doesn't have to just include cost and benefit analysis for oneself, it can and should include the other person too. This is how I see this.

Raising children... supposedly the benefit is giving your genes on :shrug There can also be social ones.

[Myst]

I don't think my relationship problems are due to my having inadequate feelings, or any great tendency to make the relationship transactional, or any desire on my part to "own" the other person or to control them. Rather, I think the root of my problems is that I have some narcissistic tendencies and I have the undesired prejudice that my partner will make my life great.

When I step back, I'd say that I do feel that my life is better when I have a partner (or when I'm around duals), but a partner can't fix what is wrong with my life. Only I can do that.

I think the detachment you've got plays a part. I don't see you more narcissistic than others on here