I don't get dual relationships (duality)

[Hope]

@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 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.

[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.

[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.

[Hope]

@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.

[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

[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...

[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.

[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]

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.