Non-dual love and "soulmates"

[lemontrees]

Like I said earlier in this thread, I'm in a relationship with a LII guy, making him my activator. We're poly, and thus, I'm able to inspect the green-ness of the otherside. I've been hanging out with my duals a lot during this relationship and enjoyed their company, yet still, nobody can beat him, even if I really love hanging out with ILEs. ILEs make a great company for doing fun and exciting things and having great conversations, but I could probably never imagine having a serious relationship with one of them, not anymore. D: They're too careless... But LIIs instead... I like how they're more stable, and their IJ temperament makes me tolerate them better for longer periods of time.

Yes, exactly. I could not have said most of this better myself. (I love LII's...)

On duality/ILE's: Having grown up/gone to college in environments where I had to constantly hide my true self as a form of self-preservation, and finding my first real ILE friend post-college and becoming astonishingly close to that person just as I was pushing to be a stronger person and be myself...and having that person pass away...it's not like I consciously need that person or even NeTi on a daily basis, but when I encounter it it's like I ache for entire parts of me that I had forgotten were missing and are only then becoming reactivated.

For instance, just last night I met this ILE man I had randomly contacted via couchsurfing not having a clue of his type (I just moved into a small rural/artsy town by the mountains for the next few months and don't know anyone) and suddenly it was like I needed some kind of sustenance that was just missing and which I was viscerally craving for, and I needed so much of it that only an extrovert could have provided that. (Missing a dead person is a completely different thing.)

All this is to say that I do think that duality is important in some capacity or another--not necessarily romantic. It helps readjust your mental landscape and remember who you are--or can be--as a person. Growing up with your dual, or around others in your quadra, might help stabilize certain "natural" aspects of you so that you don't necessarily need the presence of a romantic dual in your life, but even then they're useful for recharging/life-advice/etc etc. I do think that activity is almost just as good for this, since you're basically receiving the same functions, just in a different order.

[under the bridge]

While I deeply cherish my ISFp friends and the most amazing friendship I've ever had was with a male ESFj-Si, I'd have to answer yes to your question.

I've been with my conflict-relation wife for nearly a decade and, while the early years were an intense rocky road, I think it has shaped us both into wonderful individuals in comparison with the people that first entered the relationship. In a way I see it as living life in difficult mode; the more struggles and hardships a person overcomes the better they tend to be. While it is enjoyable to supplement my life with complementary relationships, I am happy with the path I am on and the journey my wife and I have experienced so far. The skills I've learned from our marriage have helped me immensely in dealing with disagreements and conflicts with people in general.

To a certain extent knowledge of personalities allows me to decide how spontaneous and open I can be with certain people I meet in daily life. Mainly I utilize it to more easily understand people and discern the best way of getting them to open up to me, regardless of their type.

[jet city woman]

First of all, It's you who chooses whether to judge or not to. You seem to have chosen not to. Secondly, you cannot make a model that covers everything about relationships. However, you can take a lot of important factors and explanations in to the equation that covers enough to explain why the relationship works the way it works.

Socionics obviously creates judgments. It's well-known that dual is supposed to be the "best" relationship, and conflictor is supposed to be the "worst". There are even socionics sites that rate the relations from 1 to 5 stars. I wouldn't know the difference if it wasn't pointed out to me lol.... it's not me creating the judgments.

I don't see why there couldn't be a model incorporating a lot more information concerning relationships, and adding factors that matter. Socionics needs a lot of improvement, obviously.

Feelings of love will always come and go - in any relationship. In a non-dual relationship you are much more dependent on emotions. In a dual relationship emotions will also disappear at some point, at least temporarily, but then you still have the deep dual connection, and you can continue being together. Then when emotions come back you are still there for each other.

I think this is what true love is about. You cannot depend on emotions alone, there has to be something more stable.

This is not necessarily true to me, although it could be sometimes. I still love my exes just as much now as I did when I was with them. My feelings of love did not come and go, but remained constant and drove my actions in a lot of ways. And no, we weren't duals.

[Nowisthetime]

Socionics obviously creates judgments. It's well-known that dual is supposed to be the "best" relationship, and conflictor is supposed to be the "worst". There are even socionics sites that rate the relations from 1 to 5 stars. I wouldn't know the difference if it wasn't pointed out to me lol.... it's not me creating the judgments.

I don't see why there couldn't be a model incorporating a lot more information concerning relationships, and adding factors that matter. Socionics needs a lot of improvement, obviously.

But there are plenty of descriptions of the relationships by many authors. Just read them and ignore the ratings.

[jet city woman]

But there are plenty of descriptions of the relationships by many authors. Just read them and ignore the ratings.

The point is that I don't think the judgments are necessary or correct. I don't believe that my "best" relations would necessarily be with a dual. In fact, I'm sure they wouldn't because it's not something I want. I have to feel love and want someone to have good relations with them, when it comes to a romantic partner. And the relations are named with the judgments intact, ie "Dual", "Sem-dual", "Conflictor" etc. so it's not something you can ignore. Not to mention that the descriptions are also written with a slant..... Socionics is based on the judgments, which are actually very subjective, and relations obviously involve many more factors than socionics covers, so I think the judgments are quick. I would prefer a more objective description, and then let me decide which relations I prefer.

I think I find it irritating that someone else would decide what type I need to be with for good relations. I don't buy the concept of duality. Not to mention that I see many people in dual relationships that are failures (cheating, can't be themselves with each other, never together, can't talk to one another or relate, complaints, no common interests, crappy sex life, etc etc etc). I think there are many other factors that are more important to creating successful relationships than socionics relations, one of them being love or the absence thereof. So yea, regardless of socionics relations and what they tell me I should be doing, I'm going to choose to have relationships with people I fall in love with, and that's pretty-much what I've done, regardless of what my head is telling me many times lol. Love seems to lead the way.

[Aquagraph]

Socionics obviously creates judgments. It's well-known that dual is supposed to be the "best" relationship, and conflictor is supposed to be the "worst". There are even socionics sites that rate the relations from 1 to 5 stars. I wouldn't know the difference if it wasn't pointed out to me lol.... it's not me creating the judgments.

If you decide to buy it, then it is you who is creating judgements. The judgements are not outside anyone's head. Although there probably are (basically immeasurable) correlations about duals getting better along with someone than their conflictors, people will still ultimately decide whether they want to just follow the "rating" given by socionics, dismissing their affection would "doesn't make sense" socionics-wise and accepting people just because you are supposed to accept them because you are socionically fitting.

It's merely just another tool which can be used for discrimination (positive or negative) but that's "wrong" with almost every single model that describes personalities if you take the theory far enough. I must admit that Socionics is more suitable for rating relationships but I don't have to take anyone serious if they want to (dis)like someone just because they should and neither do you. So from this we can deduce from this that it's not part of our personal view on socionics.

I think we don't even have a disagreement. Maybe we just misinterpret information due to less incompatible Information Elements. Or maybe we just misinterpret because we just use different or terms. Or maybe we don't like one another hence want to come up with different conclusions. Maybe one of us is immature. Or both of us are. All of these are theories why something doesn't work. If I'd be more interested to contemplate on this, I could add a few more theories, but I just feel like socionics is or should be more about telling us "why won't it work" rather than "how it should work".

[jet city woman]

If you decide to buy it, then it is you who is creating judgements.

Lol, I didn't make them. They are built into socionics, and that's my point. But yes, I can choose to buy it, or not. We mainly agree on most aspects. I think socionics biases are definitely more outstanding than they are for other typology systems, though, although I become irritated at some of the biases in others as well. I do think the ratings, namings of relations, biased descriptions and whatnot do add discriminatory factors in most people's minds who study it, but i think typology as a whole does. Socionics just happens to be more irritating to me because they are deciding what is best and worst, and yes, it's written into socionics, not nearly as much so in other typology systems. (In other words, others are more about descriptions and not making judgments on how one likes or dislikes relations, or how you should feel and think about relations with another type. Sure, they are still biased to a certain degree.) I also think I take offense to someone telling me how to judge my own relationships, which ones would work out "better" than the ones I choose with people I love lol..... I think the people who buy the concept of duality might many times be IN dual relationships.

"Why it won't work"..... It's kindof negative... "oh, here's why our relationship is going to fail." lol, even though it may not fail......Socionics seems to take a pessimistic view, unless a couple happens to be that needle-in-the-haystack perfect dual. Not to mention the many non-dual relationships that are successful and do work for the couples involved. "Work" is so subjective. I don't know, it could really be interpreted as either or both.... "why it won't work" and "how it should work". I think it's important not to automatically believe this is "how it should work" lol for the obvious reason that one could make that happen. Too affective. "How it might work" seems to be how I interpret it. Yes, I do see many "shoulds" in socionics, and they are built-in. It seems to be actually saying, "this is how it works", and that's very shouldy in itself, not to say a manual on how computers work isn't haha. All typologies are somewhat shouldy and ruly to me, and that's probably one reason why I am dissenting lol.

[Aquagraph]

Lol, I didn't make them. They are built into socionics, and that's my point.

Well, ratings seem a little bit off imo. Ratings are way too simplistic to be ever found accurate imo. Although it's clear that duality description is a lot more nicer than other descriptions but it still tries not to clearly try to say that "This relationship will be the best you'll have if you haven't met other duals". But, I know, it still implies something along those lines..

But I'd like to point out that even the less nicer intertype relationships have helped me understand why we don't get along and this has helped me to get along better. Me and my Supervisor, Agarina, are a living proof. At first we didn't get along and now she's a lot more understanding about ILEs since having known me and socionics.

[Aivonaima]

Yes, exactly. I could not have said most of this better myself. (I love LII's...)

Interesting to hear. I wonder if this could be (partially) type related.

[redbaron]

Feelings of love will always come and go - in any relationship. In a non-dual relationship you are much more dependent on emotions. In a dual relationship emotions will also disappear at some point, at least temporarily, but then you still have the deep dual connection, and you can continue being together. Then when emotions come back you are still there for each other.

I think this is what true love is about. You cannot depend on emotions alone, there has to be something more stable.

I was just going to say all of this! yes, this. with duality there's an unconscious calm that you don't get with other types. Unrelated to romantic feelings. But combined with romantic feelings and love, it can be very deep indeed. And more importantly, lasting. My IEI brother and SLE sister-in-law have been and stayed very much in love for 20 years now. Same with my grandma (ESE) and grandpa (LII). 65+ years for them before he died.

[jet city woman]

I was just going to say all of this! yes, this. with duality there's an unconscious calm that you don't get with other types. Unrelated to romantic feelings. But combined with romantic feelings and love, it can be very deep indeed. And more importantly, lasting. My IEI brother and SLE sister-in-law have been and stayed very much in love for 20 years now. Same with my grandma (ESE) and grandpa (LII). 65+ years for them before he died.

Yea same with many non-dual relationships I know of, and then the dual relationships that are fails, not to mention. This "unconscious calm" you speak of seems to grow over time in alot of relationships, dual or not, and then there are the dual relationships I know of that involve cheating, screaming and yelling, physical abuse, etc. I don't see any evidence that dual relationships are necessarily better or worse. There are failed dual relationships, and there are successful ones, just like with every other type of relations. Being duals does not put relationships above humanity, nor does it make two people monk-like or above disagreements and arguments, or even physical violence. There are so many more issues to consider that make or break a relationship. I think it's ridiculous to believe that finding my dual will make everything a-ok. I think that many relationships that aren't dual ones are much more pleasant for me than those I could have with my duals. In my position, I look for people who understand where I'm coming from and know how to talk to me and listen to me, and that's a rarity for me, but it's also mandatory for me. So out of thousands of people, only one may strike me as "that person". This is unique to me, and not something that anyone can brush with a broad stroke as socionics tries to. I believe that two people who care to, try, and love one another can create a great relationship with interesting and "great" relations. It seems that while socionics is a good starting point and may be pertinent depending, it's definitely not an ending point, as growth occurs. To believe that every dual relationship is better than every non-dual relationship, and that every dual relationship has better relations, is simply false.

[Slacker]

I know lots of happy non-dual relationships, but among people I know, dual relationships have a higher success rate.

[redbaron]

well la-dee-dah. nobody said that "every dual relationship is better than every non-dual relationship" that's silly. nor did anyone say that they were above disagreements, monk-like or above humanity! My grandparents used to bicker fairly frequently. you seem defensive. must be in a non-dual relationship, eh? lol

[Aivonaima]

I dated my dual and lived with him, and eventually, when the emotions faded, I broke up with him. It's true we have a special dual connection – he goddamn pisses me off and I don't understand him but I still care about him and spend time with him, even >2 years after he moved away – but it isn't romantic anymore. Romanticizing dual relationships feels weird to me... Duals can be awesome, somewhat non-romantic best friends all the same.

Consider this, guys...

Imagine your duals being the most fun, inventive, inspiring and energized/energizing kinda people, who happen to be awful at settling down, and e.g. handling money, and who often have notable problems with intoxicants. Would you rather just have fun and hang out with them, doing all kinds of exciting things and having dozens of interesting, intensive conversations, or start planning a nice, long-term relationship, or even a quiet family life that suits your introvert temperament with them? I'm starting to repeat myself, but my activators are just so, so much better for the latter, and since getting along with them is no problem, why the hell not?

Would you believe this could be type related? That some duals are just not good for a stable relationship, but as the bestest of best friends ever?

[Nowisthetime]

Imagine your duals being the most fun, inventive, inspiring and energized/energizing kinda people, who happen to be awful at settling down, and e.g. handling money, and who often have notable problems with intoxicants. Would you rather just have fun and hang out with them, doing all kinds of exciting things and having dozens of interesting, intensive conversations, or start planning a nice, long-term relationship, or even a quiet family life that suits your introvert temperament with them? I'm starting to repeat myself, but my activators are just so, so much better for the latter, and since getting along with them is no problem, why the hell not?

Would you believe this could be type related? That some duals are just not good for a stable relationship, but as the bestest of best friends ever?

There are a lot of stable responsible ILEs out there. What you wrote could be partially subtype or age or social group -related.

[jet city woman]

well la-dee-dah. nobody said that "every dual relationship is better than every non-dual relationship" that's silly. nor did anyone say that they were above disagreements, monk-like or above humanity! My grandparents used to bicker fairly frequently. you seem defensive. must be in a non-dual relationship, eh? lol

Just forming and stating my opinions. It's actually you who sounds a bit defensive. Sorry if I irritated you. /sigh

Would you believe this could be type related? That some duals are just not good for a stable relationship, but as the bestest of best friends ever?

Sure. I actually think some of my "duals" are people I wouldn't even hang out with. We have nothing in common, and I find them more irritating than anything. In fact, I've never dated an F-type more than once, in my whole life. No compatibility in my mind. (Not that I don't like many - I do.) I have many expectations, and they usually seem to not fit the bill. (And no, I didn't even know I wasn't dating F-types until a couple of years ago; obviously the romantic attraction just isn't there.)

all other factors being equal[/B], duality will be the best relationship. In other words, if you had relationships with 20 random partners of each intertype relation, it's almost certain that the type with whom you'd have the most successful relationships would be the duals.

Extraordinarily doubtful, imo and for my situation. People are not one-size-fits-all. I look for unique and designated qualities in people that "common success" methods do not cover. There are so many more contributing factors to the success or failure of a relationship, and some of them are unique to the person and cannot be measured, such as level of attraction. "All other factors being equal" is not possible in my mind because of the uniqueness and type of the individual, so it's kindof ridiculous to measure it in this manner in the first place. All other factors will never be equal; it's not even possible.

Take this example: I have never dated an F-type more than once. Say I did meet an ENFj I hit it off with. At the same time, I've always had this thing for ENTj men. So an ENTj man comes along, and I feel more attracted to him. I have a relationship with both, and end up with the ENTj. Why? Because I feel more attracted to him and love him more, and it's probably not even possible for me to feel more attracted to or love an ENFj man more at this point, because of belief and the way my feelings and attraction have formed over the years. Love and attraction are immeasurable (I still personally measure them for myself), yet I think they are the most important factors to the success of a relationship. If I love someone more and am extremely attracted to them, I will definitely hold on longer and put up with more shit than I would otherwise lol..... therefore, in my case, an ENTj relationship is going to be more satisfying for me because I love more, am more attracted, and it's what I want vs. what I don't want. (This story is not completely true for me btw, just an example). Relations are not always the #1 factor for someone in choosing how satisfied they are in a relationship, or measuring how successful a relationship is. I tend to measure by a different scale. Some people even enjoy what others deem horrible relations and dislike great relations, so their scale is going to be different. Feelings, thoughts, and beliefs will change the way people view the same relationship, and that's also what socionics seems to fail to address for me. Perhaps a "dual" relationship is not premium, but a "conflictor" relationship is, in someone's mind. One wo/man's trash is another wo/man's treasure.

End result is: there are too many factors involved (including individual ones) to determine whether socionics relations make a difference, or they don't, when measuring the success of a relationship. Too many examples of failed dual relationships along with non-dual relationships, and too many successful non-dual relationships to determine. Everyone's recipe for success is different and there is no cookie-cutter mold.

[lemontrees]

Interesting to hear. I wonder if this could be (partially) type related.

Well, on top of that LII's tend to be less all over the place. ILE's can be very smart/farsighted while also being so constantly distracted that they can't manage to focus. It scares me b/c they can be so talented and dream so large (and crazily) without managing to apply it to anything. They're so adept at "seeing potential" but can often be seen wasting their own potential, which just makes me really sad when they have strong personalities and self-define as "ambitious" people. (If they aren't trying to be ambitious, then of course it doesn't matter.) It's like they want to do all these grand things but can't b/c they can't change who they are. Greek tragedy! They can get fairly good at a lot of things without getting genuinely good at anything (IEE's too). Of course there are ample exceptions to the rule. But LII's don't seem to have this particular problem--they're brilliant and quirky while being more just quietly grounded.

Anyway, maybe I'm the nearsighted one and all those crazy ideas will change the world in a hundred years.

And in the end, love depends on the person.

[Aivonaima]

@lemontrees, I agree with everything you said. Just wanted to say that.

[Absurd]

Take this example: I have never dated an F-type more than once. Say I did meet an ENFj I hit it off with. At the same time, I've always had this thing for ENTj men. So an ENTj man comes along, and I feel more attracted to him. I have a relationship with both, and end up with the ENTj. Why? Because I feel more attracted to him and love him more, and it's probably not even possible for me to feel more attracted to or love an ENFj man more at this point, because of belief and the way my feelings and attraction have formed over the years.

Oh just say, betas are gay.

[redbaron]

that's fine. I'm really not invested in anyone's opinion on this. I think it's cool that you know what you want, Jet City!

[lemontrees]

@lemontrees, I agree with everything you said. Just wanted to say that.

I'm so glad. My SLE best friend of many years doesn't understand why she's always been more romantically attracted to my duals romantically than I am, from way before I learned socionics. (Pure attraction is a different matter). In fact when she introduced me to socionics she asked me what qualities I wanted in a person and when I listed "stability" and "responsibility" as two of them she claimed that these things were not coming from a socionics place, since my duals could not offer those things (??) After she said that, I wondered for a while if I felt that way b/c I had grown up with an LSE father and admired/feared him so much. Anyway I think there are several things wrong with her statement, in retrospect.

...I find with ILE's the noncrazy ones are disappointing and the crazy ones don't necessarily present the best long-term dating possibilities. Again, there are exceptions to the rule.

For the record, I know an SEI girl (my dead friend's ex) who dated an ILE (my dead friend...) for five years, was madly in love with him but ultimately broke up with him b/c he/the relationship was unhealthy, found another ILE after the breakup, and is in love/seems really happy in her current relationship. Even after the breakup they had that "special connection." But there was just something amiss in the previous relationship that isn't in the current I guess.

[lemontrees]

ps PistolShrimp

I'm sorry for veering off the topic of the original post. For the record, I don't think you need to be duals to be soulmates. My soulmate is probably my SLE female friend (many of my female friends throughout life have been SLE, but this girl is somewhere between a sister and a lover to me), and although we can't provide each other with the things that a dual can provide, practically no one else in the world can provide us with the things we do provide each other (as opposed to 1/16th of the population.) Your dual and your soulmate don't have to play the same role.

[PistolShrimp]

ps PistolShrimp

I'm sorry for veering off the topic of the original post. For the record, I don't think you need to be duals to be soulmates. My soulmate is probably my SLE female friend (many of my female friends throughout life have been SLE, but this girl is somewhere between a sister and a lover to me), and although we can't provide each other with the things that a dual can provide, practically no one else in the world can provide us with the things we do provide each other (as opposed to 1/16th of the population.) Your dual and your soulmate don't have to play the same role.

Aw don't worry, I don't mind at all!

It's always interesting for me to hear about ILEs from SEI eyes, as my boyfriend is ILE. I really like your point that your dual and your soulmate can play different roles in your life; the closest thing I've had to a soulmate is probably my Delta NF bestie, for instance, and she certainly doesn't provide what an SLE can. My SEI mother has an SLE soulmate, as well- my dad.

[Beautiful sky]

I think people don't understand that soul mates can be any sex regardless of your orientation; when I first met dolphin, I thought she was my soul mate.

[Absurd]

She says she's a Pee in socionics as well.

[redbaron]

I think people don't understand that soul mates can be any sex regardless of your orientation; when I first met dolphin, I thought she was my soul mate.

yes. plus, just because you feel *that* way about someone (soul mate) doesn't mean you automatically feel romantic towards them and/or want to spend your life with them. I think it depends on the definition of soul mate too, and the context. Maybe it's a small step up from "kindred spirits". I don't know if people even use that term anymore but my mom used to say that about me and my ESI boyfriend.

[Ver]

For me, a soulmate is someone who you feel strong connection with. My soulmate is my ISFj friend - we met in primary schools and been friends ever since. Because of socionics I now know why she's sometimes annoying me but in general I feel stronger bond with her than with my ISTp friends although they are more fun to be around. She's the one who comforts me, understands me, talks with me, is always understanding. We share values and we have similar sensitivity. She's one of the people who know most about me. I trust her.
I think with people we call soulmates we share similar values, similar goals, something that makes us love these people and get close to them.

[mu4]

Well, on top of that LII's tend to be less all over the place. ILE's can be very smart/farsighted while also being so constantly distracted that they can't manage to focus. It scares me b/c they can be so talented and dream so large (and crazily) without managing to apply it to anything. They're so adept at "seeing potential" but can often be seen wasting their own potential, which just makes me really sad when they have strong personalities and self-define as "ambitious" people. (If they aren't trying to be ambitious, then of course it doesn't matter.) It's like they want to do all these grand things but can't b/c they can't change who they are. Greek tragedy! They can get fairly good at a lot of things without getting genuinely good at anything (IEE's too). Of course there are ample exceptions to the rule. But LII's don't seem to have this particular problem--they're brilliant and quirky while being more just quietly grounded.

Anyway, maybe I'm the nearsighted one and all those crazy ideas will change the world in a hundred years.

And in the end, love depends on the person.

I would say I've found LII's who are all over the place as well as ILE's, they more easily rely on relationships rather however to deal with issues so they can seem stable. IMO, SEI's are often all over the place as well and they are a type I find who often picks a easy but imperfect relationship in their life and sticks with it rather then look for something better. I've met many SEI's with SLE's, LSI's, LII's, etc in my life and it's generally not a bad relationship but not great either. Sometimes it's even a bad relationship, yet they're so bad at extricating themselves from these relationships they never really find happiness, but more satisfaction in being someone's partner, someone's mother, etc.

As far as ILE's I've know, I've met more ILE women than men and I would say the great tragedy of their life is professional success and total independence of character, while being alone for a majority of their adult hood. One I know just married a ESI/SLI, I'm not sure how that is going to turn out. I really just hope I'm just wrong about the typings. They have no political similarities either as well as differ in many other areas. I smell train-wreck as she's been desperate to get married/etc/etc/etc. I really hope I'm wrong and she's IEE instead of ILE. But I won't be surprised if a divorce happens in 2 years.

I would say a ILE is a type that doesn't grow up very quickly unlike some other types, and that has good and bad things about it, so most of the people on this forum have met younger ILEs. I do find most ILE's are fairly independent even if they're off the wall and childish, able to at least pay the bills and scrounge up some food. I think people underestimate other's resourcefulness because they don't fit a certain criteria of mature adult or stable human being, unfortunately it generally result in ILE's being kinda of isolated in life, independent enough to survive, too immature to be taken seriously.(which for them is important to a certain extent)

I would say this isolation generally drives most ILE's a bit crazy at least in the eyes of society, which is why the archetype for the sociotype is Don Quixote, a insane knight fighting windmills.

I would say many/most SEI's would avoid relations with a ILE because they're way too practical and pessimistic and generally risk averse.

[redbaron]

that's interesting. I wish +Blaze would weigh on this topic. As an ILE in mid-life.

how do I tag someone?

[marooned]

Do you think that someone who is not your dual could be right for you and someone you want to spend a long period of time, if not a lifetime, with?

of course. I started replying to rest but then I didn't like what I was writing and felt it was pointless. In short I think that Socionics can be applied to conflicts. I don't really know if it would impact who I would date if I did date... I somehow kind of doubt it, particularly since I'm not even sure of my own type, but also because I don't believe duality is all that magical. Anyway I do tend to apply Socionics in my mind when thinking about relationships in my family and I often see conflicts and problems in the relationships as being explicable in terms of Socionics. So I think that I have gained more of an appreciation for compatibility although I wouldn't so strictly apply it, but it can become a matter of why put yourself in a position to incur problems when you know better.

[mu4]

that's interesting. I wish +Blaze would weigh on this topic. As an ILE in mid-life.

how do I tag someone?

@Blaze

This is how!

Speaking of blaze I do see her as kinda of like a lot of ILE women I've met, as well as SLE women, very successful independent but also unable to fully establish a relationship.

[redbaron]

@Blaze

This is how!

Speaking of blaze I do see her as kinda of like a lot of ILE women I've met, as well as SLE women, very successful independent but also unable to fully establish a relationship.

Oh, the at sign! thanks! Yeah.... She's soooo great though! I love Blaze. Anyway, I told her about this thread and maybe she'll reply later.

[mu4]

Oh, the at sign! thanks! Yeah.... She's soooo great though! I love Blaze. Anyway, I told her about this thread and maybe she'll reply later.

Yea I think women are kinda of ignored in the sociotype ILE picture a lot of the time, it's always boys boys boys, or immature boys boys boys... But what are ILE women like, and how do they deal with their challenges...

[redbaron]

but it can become a matter of why put yourself in a position to incur problems when you know better.

Right. Like "Mistakes We Knew We Were Making". I've experienced this--almost like WATCHING myself, despite knowing what's likely to happen, doing it again. Was I doing it just to see what would happen? As an almost subconscious experiment? Or was it that I just couldn't help myself? Didn't have the energy to stop being me, to stop doing what I do naturally. I've watched myself walk into these situations of my own free will. Even knowing socionics, I don't think it always helps. Sometimes. Maybe.

I also tend to think that armed with this knowledge, it would be irresponsible of me to start a relationship with, say, an SLI for example. What would be the point of that? Even if I was supremely attracted to him physically. Even if we had some shared interests. Even if we both like pina coladas and getting caught in the rain. BECAUSE things can be good, at first. But after awhile, you just don't know how things are going to go. And if you know ahead of time that your IEs are at odds, why push it?

[mu4]

I think a lot of people will fall in love with their non-duals and think they're their duals even if they know socionics, love can warp one's thinking for good and bad.

I think most people who think duals only or any relationship can work well is just fooling themselves, there's a small spectrum of relationship that works with specific variants of those sociotypes, not all individuals are equal politically, religious wise and etc, under specific environmental conditions. Poverty and ignorance are never good predictors for relationship stability.

I think most relationships are either bad or mediocre(this is a given due to average/mediocre being the norm), and it takes a significant effort, resources and/or environmental circumstances to make a really good relationship. Some people get lucky, other people just get whatever. However for most individuals even a bad or average/mediocre relationship is preferable to no relationship and of some benefit, so settling isn't a horrible idea either.

I think the existence of socionics as a study due to a female Fi-PoLR in a bad relationship with a benefactor is without a doubt not a mere coincidence.

Aushra was basically a alien amongst aliens.

[redbaron]

I think a lot of people will fall in love with their non-duals and think they're their duals even if they know socionics, love can warp one's thinking for good and bad.

so true.

I think most people who think duals only or any relationship can work well is just fooling themselves, there's a small spectrum of relationship that works with specific variants of those sociotypes, not all individuals are equal politically, religious wise and etc, under specific environmental conditions. Poverty and ignorance are never good predictors for relationship stability.

yep. The SLE/IEI divorce I know was mostly based on poverty and prescription drug addiction.

I think most relationships are either bad or mediocre(this is a given due to average/mediocre being the norm), and it takes a significant effort, resources and/or environmental circumstances to make a really good relationship. Some people get lucky, other people just get whatever. However for most individuals even a bad or average/mediocre relationship is preferable to no relationship and of some benefit, so settling isn't a horrible idea either.

I think the existence of socionics as a study due to a female Fi-PoLR in a bad relationship with a benefactor is without a doubt not a mere coincidence.

Aushra was basically a alien amongst aliens.

Poor Aushra...

[Blaze]

Feelings of love will always come and go - in any relationship. In a non-dual relationship you are much more dependent on emotions. In a dual relationship emotions will also disappear at some point, at least temporarily, but then you still have the deep dual connection, and you can continue being together. Then when emotions come back you are still there for each other.

I think this is what true love is about. You cannot depend on emotions alone, there has to be something more stable.

this really resonates. makes me wish for a dual. and agree, mostly. in this way, the dual relationship has that stronger connection. analytically, it seems to be the connection between the dual seeking functions. have also seen this bond in relations of benefit, not so much with activity relations, (at least not in my own experience).

agree with what redbaron said about duals being best, all things being equal which they never are. the older one gets, the harder it becomes to get all the things on your list. when you are young, the world and your goals are an open book: you and your mate create your lives together. once middle aged, you are more formed, you have preferences, needs, attachments, responsibilities, aka "baggage". whether or not your "baggage" dovetails with someone else's is really a crapshoot. not to mention the issue of the relational contract, otherwise known as what it is people are really wanting out of a relationship at a given point in time. in midlife, people have finally figured out that they want can be quite outlandish, can even be barbaric or primitive. when young, people generally want similar things such as get married, have kids, buy a house, move to a location that everybody likes, do fun entertaining stuff, achieve career goals etc etc.

what hkkmr says about ILE is kinda sorta true although it is said with classic (and excessive) ILE honesty and simplicity. we ILE females are quite independent and ambitious - this characteristic is very hard for most men to tolerate, since men want to be in charge even when they're wrong. ILE female cannot resist pointing that out. and all ILE's could be seen as "childish" but a better word is child-like in that ILE's are very receptive to new possibilities and have an idealism that does not always take into account reality, people's interests, and the political/power process. the older the ILE gets, the more savvy they become, after having learned many times what what the world will do with new ideas. the savvy comes from many scorching experiences at work and in relationships, so, the savvy comes from expensive lessons. this is what reinforces the workaholism "now that i know all this, i can make the change the world needs". if i don't use my experience then it will have been all for nothing.

hkkmr could be right about SEI's, but i don't know many SEI's well enough to confirm. theoretically, i think that out of all types they are the ones who can make any relationship work. so, they tend to stay in whatever relationship they are in. this could be a good thing or a not so good thing depending on the relationship. one thing i do know for sure is that there are not many available at midlife. i have not been able to find even one SEI male available in my area. there is an alpha tragedy here about ILE/SEI. the ILE is a distracted workaholic and the SEI lands in a relationship with a non dual....so we do not always find each other. maybe we find each other when even older, after retirement and deaths of spouses.

[Blaze]

thanks redbaron and hkkmr, i just read your posts about me on page 2.

i'm not as inept as all that, though....remember, i was married to SLE, so that's Fi polr x2.

as for infpman....it ain't over till the fat lady sings, and folks, she has not sang yet, reconciliation is in the works.

[redbaron]

It makes me click, oh yes it does. Like I said, I've lived with ILE, and had several other loved ILE-ones. I love spending time with them, but being this heavily introverted (in the hermit-sense, one of mya duals calls me that...), I feel like LIIs understand me in a way ILEs don't, especially when hanging out with them for longer. I'm pretty visibly IP temperament most of the time and even if IJ does it a bit differently, there's still a lot I can relate to. Sp LIIs are my favourite choice for spendind a longer time together.

one of my best girlfriends is LII. I really love her! Long distance friendship, mostly. She's fantastically intelligent and always points out helpful things. I think she enjoys my emotionally expressive self.

[jet city woman]

I think most people who think duals only or any relationship can work well is just fooling themselves, there's a small spectrum of relationship that works with specific variants of those sociotypes, not all individuals are equal politically, religious wise and etc, under specific environmental conditions. Poverty and ignorance are never good predictors for relationship stability.

The dual relationships I was speaking of that are failures (and big ones) do not concern poverty or too much ignorance. As I said, I see no evidence whatsoever in my daily life that dual relationships > others, nor do I believe that two people of any two types cannot achieve the same ends as those in a dual relationship. It would be ridiculous imo to think otherwise, give the nature and adaptability of certain people.

I also do not find that religious or political beliefs make a difference at all to alot of people when entering a relationship. I find that most of the people they matter to are very biased and/or extreme in their views, and if they want to, they can change that. (Me, for instance, my S.O. is a Christian and I am NOT. I couldn't care less lol........) We also differ politically. I've never dated anyone who agreed with me on political or religious views, and I honestly don't need to. This doesn't seem to be the source of the disgruntlement honestly. I don't even think i've had but maybe one or two real arguments concerning it, although I've had some entertaining heated discussions.

I think the comments you made concerning socionics as being similar to astrology were most correct in my mind. MBTI less so, sorry.