# Dual type issues skinned down to the bone



## Metekingi (Nov 5, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> So what? You haven't shown the occurrence of these relationships is any higher than chance.


I never set out to show that the occurrence of these relationship is any higher than chance.



> And you're ignoring the _majority _of people who are not attracted to their duals.


No I'm not.



> Also, according to socionics, duality is the ONLY relationship that can work. And this is patently false.


Yes, I agree.



> So there is no reason to think duals are any better relationships than any other. On the contrary, there are many reason to think they are not.


I never said dual relationships are better than any other type of relationship.

Once more...

Of course just because your duals doesn't mean it's going to be a successful relationship. I think what matters most is that couples share the same goals and values.

But what I have noticed in my life and on these forums is that alot of people seem to be drawn to their duals.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> Can you cite some studies that prove socionics duality doesn't work?


Go over to my "another theory of matchmaking" thread in the MBTI subforum. (Go to my profile page first if you can't find it.) I cite two there. I also remember watching a video--I think it was NFGeeks--where the host said the only duality relation that seems to work is ESTJ-INFP. There is another study cited in a thread here that lists successful relationships by the number of letters the partners have in common. The least successful couples had no letters in common--ie, duals. The most successful had _three. _(Which happens to agree with my theory.) And so on.

Now, I will turn this around and ask _you _to show me even a _single _study that shows duality works.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> Can you cite some studies that prove socionics duality doesn't work?


Yeah, I was looking for this too. The only thing cited is a study by some child psychologists in 2000 which I can't seem to find on Google Scholar:

Tieger and Baron-Tieger (2000)

Barrons is misspelled though.

If someone could find and link it, that'd be great.  Otherwise I tend to not rely on phantom research papers as legitimate sources. It's too easy to lie and make up statistics over the internet otherwise.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> There are almost no ESFJs on this forum. They live out in the real world rather than in virtual reality, so I doubt you'll see them hanging out in mass on the INTP forum -- even on their own forum there are almost none!!!


If ESFJs irl like INTPs so much why aren't they here? And show me the INTPs here who say they like ESFJs irl? There are plenty of examples of INTPs online complaining about ESFJs and SJs in general.



> The ENFPs and ISTJs have a thread going for themselves: http://personalitycafe.com/istj-forum-duty-fulfillers/7682-istj-enfp-relationships-184.html The IEE-SLI couple is in my opinion one that dualizes most often. ENFPs are very keen psychologists and figure out quicker than some other types who balances them out.


So there is one thread on ISTJ-ENFP. How many threads are there on INTJs? There are probably more threads about INTP-ENFP than ISTJ-ENFP.



> The INFJs tend to mis-type the ESTPs they are with into ENTPs as the video above shows, mostly due to intuitive bias in MBTI where any S-types with a modicum of imagination and creativity gets typed as an intuitive. Though Mirage is still a very popular relationship type: it's relaxing and easy-going, you can talk about everything and anything, and some people prefer that -- so there are still plenty of INFJ-ENTP couples out there.


That's one INFJ who mistyped one ESTP. And she didn't have good things to say about that _failed _relationship. If your argument for INFJ-ESTP falls on widespread mistyping then I think you are in trouble here.



> *I'm not drawn to my duals *specifically, but to all people of compatible temperament (SEEs, ILEs, IEEs), also my benefactor and beneficiary, supervisor and supervisee types. There is initial attraction in several types of relations besides duality, and since almost 80% of posters on this forum are 25 y.o. or younger and in the experimental stage of their life, you'll see all kinds of relationships being talked about on here and not only duality. It takes some time and years of bouncing around relationships that don't work to figure out what does work for you :wink:


Why not? Socionics says you should.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> Now, I will turn this around and ask _you _to show me even a _single _study that shows duality works.


1. Descriptions of dual relations have been drafted from accounts of real people and actual couples who are or were living in them. Filatova, for example, provides numerous examples of dual and non-dual conversations in her study of intertype relationships.

2. One study into intertype relationships has shown that 45% of couples are living in dual relations.

3. Another study showed a lower percentage of 15% of couples being dual, but it still topped any other intertype in that study.

You can go to 16types website to find both of these studies as well as Filatova's publications on intertype relationships.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> 1. Descriptions of dual relations have been drafted from accounts of real people and actual couples who are or were living in them. Filatova, for example, provides numerous examples of dual and non-dual conversations in her study of intertype relationships.
> 
> 2. One study into intertype relationships has shown that 45% of couples are living in dual relations.
> 
> ...


1. You only need one couple to use as a source for an empirical description. So this doesn't prove anything. And you can forego the examples and use the theory alone.

2. I strongly doubt 45% and suspect the sample was not representative of the general population. It would contradict any other study I've ever heard of, including the Fisher and Tiegers studies, and my own observations on sites such as this as well as my own experience.

3. 15% may be possible but I'd need to see the details of the study before I'd accept it as evidence. Since you are making the case for duality, why should I go searching for them. Link those sources here for _everyone _to consider.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

I don't find dual to be accurate - I'm happily married to an Istp according to socionic that would be a relationship of conflict , yet my partner and I have never engaged in a loud argument and probably bicker once or twice a year ( we've been together for nearly 10 years ). I'm not saying that dual doesn't work but it just doesn't seem to be entirely accurate.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

MNiS said:


> Yeah, I was looking for this too. The only thing cited is a study by some child psychologists in 2000 which I can't seem to find on Google Scholar:
> 
> Tieger and Baron-Tieger (2000)
> 
> ...


I cited the _title of the book _Tiegers wrote on my thread. Do you really think I made that up? Are you that f'g blank?

http://www.amazon.com/Just-Your-Typ...ity/dp/0316845698/ref=asap_B000AQ7020?ie=UTF8


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> 2. I strongly doubt 45% and suspect the sample was not representative of the general population. It would contradict any other study I've ever heard of, including the Fisher and Tiegers studies, and my own observations on sites such as this as well as my own experience.


Try this: mbti marriage statistics - Google Scholar

It's the fifth link which confirms point 2.



ae1905 said:


> I cited the _title of the book _Tiegers wrote on my thread. Do you really think I made that up? Are you that f'g blank?


I wasn't even referring to you and no I wasn't trying to claim you'd make anything up. Calm down. It's a book, I can see that now.  

I skimmed the book and it's MBTI pop psychology though. Not very useful, IMO. :\


----------



## Metekingi (Nov 5, 2013)

ai.tran.75 said:


> I don't find dual to be accurate - I'm happily married to an Istp according to socionic that would be a relationship of conflict , yet my partner and I have never engaged in a loud argument and probably bicker once or twice a year ( we've been together for nearly 10 years ). I'm not saying that dual doesn't work but it just doesn't seem to be entirely accurate.


Enneagram might also be a consideration. Certain enneagram types seem to pair up more often than others, like 6's and 9's. I know an INTP type 6 and an ENFP type 9 couple that have been together for a couple of years.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

MNiS said:


> Try this: mbti marriage statistics - Google Scholar
> 
> It's the fifth link which confirms point 2.
> 
> I wasn't even referring to you. Calm down. It's a book, I can see that now.


What is "casually met"? A valid scientific study explicitly accounts and controls for any extraneous factors that may influence the results. I don't see any discussion of these controls. I have no idea what population these couples were drawn from and how they were selected. Also, this is one paper. Science works by testing and _retesting _hypotheses. And this paper was published in a socionics journal. Are there any studies in _reputable _journals _not associated with socionics _that corroborate these results?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> If ESFJs irl like INTPs so much why aren't they here? And show me the INTPs here who say they like ESFJs irl? There are plenty of examples of INTPs complaining about ESFJs and SJs in general.


1. I don't hang out on forums of my dual type either. That's because most people prefer real relationships over distorted and depersonalized forum communication and long-distance virtual romances. 
2. You only have to use the search function to find INTPs who say they are good friends with ESFJs: http://personalitycafe.com/esfj-forum-caregivers/82571-esfj-intp-relationships.html
3. There is a tendency on this forum to type any anal-retentive short-sighted conservative a-hole into one of the SJ types, and then carp and complain about them. Not only is this inaccurate, but it also creates a very distorted picture of these types. This isn't done only by INTPs, mind you -- I've ran polls on several type subforums (which you can find with the search function) that show that most of the intuitive types hate on ESTJs and ESFJ and report having most conflict with them. Since the ESTJs and ESFJs themselves don't report having an extraordinary high number of conflicts with all other types in their lives, it only goes to show that people mis-type those whom they dislike into SJs.



ae1905 said:


> So there is one thread on ISTJ-ENFP. How many threads are there on INTJs? There are probably more threads about INTP-ENFP than ISTJ-ENFP.


There is this very interesting phenomenon is that people don't write about their relationships when they are fully happy and satisfied within them. Why post anything when you aren't having any issues? The people you do see posting on the forum are those who are having troubles. As my friend says: "anyone who's happy in their life doesn't hang out on internet forums complaining about themselves". The high number of ENFP-INTJ threads asking how to resolve that or this relationship issue is thus a red flag that it doesn't work all that well.



ae1905 said:


> That's one INFJ who mistyped one ESTP. And she didn't have good things to say about that _failed _relationship. If your argument for INFJ-ESTP falls on widespread mistyping then I think you are in trouble here.


You can't seriously believe that out of 10,000+ people who visit this forum that girl is the _only_ INFJ who has ever mistaken an ESTP for ENTP. And for every one video or thread about a rocky INFJ-ESTP relationship you can find 10X as many threads about INFJ-ENTP relationship on the rocks or deadlocked in a misunderstanding. 

I think it's misguided to follow your line of reasoning and try to prove which relationship type is better or worse by amount of threads that get posted about them, but if we do follow it that would mean that INFJ-ESTP relationships are 10X better and stronger than INFJ-ENTP relationships just because INFJ tend to complain and argue with ENTPs much more on this forum.



ae1905 said:


> Why not? Socionics says you should.


Because you omitted highlighting the word "specifically".
There is a difference between "I'm not drawn to my duals" and "I'm not drawn to my duals specifically".
Why aren't people drawn to their duals specifically? 
Because there are many attractive intertypes besides duality (benefit, mirage, supervision, and semi-duality for example).
Because it takes time for any relationship to develop and show itself for what it is. What seemed attractive initially might not be so once you get to know the other person closely. When I say that I'm not attracted to my duals specifically, I mean that superficially other types can also seem attractive. But getting closer I haven't found those relationships to be as rewarding as complimentary as dual ones.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> What is "casually met"? A valid scientific study explicitly accounts and controls for any extraneous factors that may influence the results. I don't see any discussion of these controls. I have no idea what population these couples were drawn from and how they were selected. Also, this is one paper. Science works by testing and _retesting _hypotheses. And this paper was published in a socionics journal. Are there any studies in _reputable _journals _not associated with socionics _that corroborate these results?


Since it seems to be research based on the author's consulting experience I would *assume* that "casually met" means a non-formal selection process, meaning the author picked the first 119 married couples the author came across and studied their Socionics type. That's not a blind study per se, but it's not biased either. Assuming that's what casually met means, which I would think that it does.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> Are there any studies in _reputable _journals _not associated with socionics _that corroborate these results?


Why would non-Socionics journals publish articles about Socionics? :laughing:
That doesn't make much sense.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> 1. I don't hang out on forums of my dual type either. That's because most people prefer real relationships over distorted and depersonalized forum communication and long-distance virtual romances.


But there are many people who hang out here hoping to meet up with people IRL. And if it is well known that INTPs hang out here then any ESFJs who really wanted to meet them would be here trying. But they're not. 



> 2. You only have to use the search function to find INTPs who say they are good friends with ESFJs: http://personalitycafe.com/esfj-forum-caregivers/82571-esfj-intp-relationships.html


And how many aren't good friends with ESFJs? You seem to think that producing one or two examples proves that all INTPs or even most INTPs like ESFJs. How does that work? 

I'll tell you what. I'll start a thread on the INTP forum to see how many are good friends with ESFJs, OK? Let the INTPs decide.



> 3. There is a tendency on this forum to type any anal-retentive short-sighted conservative a-hole into one of the SJ types, and then carp and complain about them. Not only is this inaccurate, but it also creates a very distorted picture of these types. This isn't done only by INTPs, mind you -- I've ran polls on several type subforums (which you can find with the search function) that show that all most of the intuitive types hate on ESTJs and ESFJ and report having most conflict with them. *Since the ESTJs and ESFJs themselves don't report having an extraordinary high number of conflicts with all other types in their lives, *it only goes to show that people mis-type those whom they dislike into these two types.


INTPs aren't the type to get in your face if they don't like you. And ESXJs may not be sensitive enough to realize what the INTPs, who are famously stone-faced, think of them. 



> There is this very interesting phenomenon is that people don't write about their relationships when they are fully happy and satisfied within them. Why post anything when you aren't having any issues? The people you do see posting on the forum are those who are having troubles. As my friend says: "anyone who's happy in their life doesn't hang out on internet forums complaining about themselves". The high number of ENFP-INTJ threads asking how to resolve that or this relationship issue is thus a red flag that it doesn't work all that well.


I see. So now you're claiming that not only are there a disproportionate number of dual couples, but they're all so happy they have nothing to complain of! If there really are as many duals as you think then shouldn't there be quite a few unhappy ones, maybe not as a percentage of the total but in absolute numbers? So why don't we see them here? Does that have something to do with Fisher and Tiegers findings that most people don't choose their duals to begin with?! How about that!



> You can't seriously believe that out of 10,000+ people who visit this forum that girl is the _only_ INFJ who has ever mistaken an ESTP for ENTP. And for every one video or thread about a rocky INFJ-ESTP relationship you can find 10X as many threads about INFJ-ENTP relationship on the rocks or deadlocked in a misunderstanding.


My point was that you only produced ONE example of a INFJ-ESTP couple, and a FAILED one, at that. NOT that there aren't other examples. And you tried to use that one example to prove a point that can't be proven by one example alone. Get it now? 

And maybe there are "10X" as many INFJ-ENTP threads because there are 10X as many such pairings. Can you show that isn't true. Because that's what you're claiming.



> Because you omitted highlighting the word "specifically".
> There is a difference between "I'm not drawn to my duals" and "I'm not drawn to my duals specifically".
> Why aren't people drawn to their duals specifically?
> Because there are many attractive intertypes besides duality (benefit, mirage, supervision, and semi-duality for example).
> Because it takes time for any relationship to develop and show itself for what it is. What seemed attractive initially might not be so once you get to know the other person closely. When I say that I'm not attracted to my duals specifically, I mean that superficially other types can also seem attractive.* But getting closer I haven't found those relationships to be as rewarding as complimentary as dual ones.*


This sounds like revisionist apologia. If you like your dual you would come out and say it, not talk in circles like this.


There are numerous studies pointing to the fact people prefer types other than their duals. I cited a few. There is also an abundance of evidence here supporting this idea. The only people trying to defend duality are apologists for socionics theory.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> Why would non-Socionics journals publish articles about Socionics? :laughing:
> That doesn't make much sense.


You've obviously never done academic research. If socionics was an established and accepted theory in academic circles, why wouldn't you see socionics articles in broad-interest psychology journals? Why would it be necessary to publish socionics papers in obscure journals not recognized by mainstream academic psychology? Could it be that these papers wouldn't be accepted? That they don't meet the standards of acceptable scientific work?

Quack papers can only be published in quack journals. No reputable journal would sully their reputations publishing such garbage.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

MNiS said:


> Since it seems to be research based on the author's consulting experience I would *assume* that "casually met" means a non-formal selection process, meaning the author picked the first 119 married couples the author came across and studied their Socionics type. That's not a blind study per se, but it's not biased either. Assuming that's what casually met means, which I would think that it does.


How do you know there are no biases in that sample?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> How do you know there are no biases in that sample?


There's no way to know that for certain but I interpret casually met to mean that the authors didn't intentionally try to bias their sample and that their typing process is reliable. Why? Do you think the authors might be biased?

Because I'm running on the assumption that the authors didn't selectively choose their couples and that they're presenting their data honestly. If so, then those are some pretty firm conclusions.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

MNiS said:


> I interpret casually met to mean that the authors didn't intentionally try to bias their sample and that their typing process is reliable. Why? Do you think the authors might be biased?
> 
> I'm running on the assumption that the authors didn't selectively choose their couples and that they're presenting their data honestly.


The authors don't have to be biased to have a biased sample. Biases can be introduced by chance if the authors don't identify them ahead of time and choose their couples so biases don't exist. Just choosing people "casually" does not ensure biases won't be present.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> The authors don't have to be biased to have a biased sample. Biases can be introduced by chance if the authors don't identify them ahead of time and choose their couples so biases don't exist. Just choosing people "casually" does not ensure biases won't be present.


Well, I think the numbers speak for themselves (by my calculations):

_Duals and types of the same quadra end up married far more often than by chance. 54% and 64% when purely by chance would be 6.25% and 25% respectively. So duals marry 8.64 times more frequently than if marriage and types were purely random. Duals, identicals, activity and mirrors marry 2.56 times more than from types outside of their quadra._

If there were some unforeseen bias, that would affect the final numbers a bit, but 864% and 256% more often than by chance is pretty strong evidence. The only other realistic way to draw those types of conclusions would've been if the authors were committing wholesale fraud which I doubt that they were.


----------



## mav04 (Dec 19, 2010)

To_august said:


> Without going into debates on J/P switch validity and conversion between systems:
> FiNe ego (dom/auxiliary) type is dual with TeSi ego (dom/auxiliary) type
> NiFe ego (dom/auxiliary) type is dual with SeTi ego (dom/auxiliary) type


dom/auxillary-you mean leading and creative? Because dom/auxillary is MBTI. leading and creative is Socionics.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

MNiS said:


> Well, I think the numbers speak for themselves (by my calculations):
> 
> _Duals and types of the same quadra end up married far more often than by chance. 54% and 64% when purely by chance would be 6.25% and 25% respectively. So duals marry 8.64 times more frequently than if marriage and types were purely random. Duals, identicals, activity and mirrors marry 2.56 times more than from types outside of their quadra._
> 
> If there were some unforeseen bias, that would affect the final numbers a bit, but 864% and 256% more often than by chance is pretty strong evidence. The only other realistic way to draw those types of conclusions would've been if the authors were committing wholesale fraud which I doubt that they were.


Their results contradict other studies. And science works by testing and retesting hypotheses. One paper, especially a paper like this one doesn't evidence make.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> But there are many people who hang out here hoping to meet up with people IRL. And if it is well known that INTPs hang out here then any ESFJs who really wanted to meet them would be here trying. But they're not.


1. Only if they have no life and few other options, which rarely applies to the extraverted sensing type like ESFJ. For the majority it is much easier to meet people at their university, in class, at some club or meetup event, or when hanging with their friends. Being able to actually meet and see each other adds many bonuses over virtual romance. Not to mention it's safer and much more natural way to start a relationship.
2. Except that 99.9% of ESFJs know nothing of this forum, duality, or socionics. So why would they be flocking to INTP forum all of a sudden when they don't know anything about it? And considering that half the people type as something different between MBTI and Socionics, they are just as likely to run across a non-dual type on there.



ae1905 said:


> And how many aren't good friends with ESFJs? You seem to think that producing one or two examples proves that ALL INTPs or even MOST INTPs like ESFJs. How does that work?


There are many more than just two if you use the search function. You asked to show you INTP who actually likes an ESFJ irl implying that it is impossible, and you've been proven wrong in that assertion.



ae1905 said:


> I'll tell you what. I'll start a thread on the INTP forum to see how many are good friends with ESFJs, OK? Let the INTPs decide.


1. Pointless because half the INTPs on that forum don't type as INTj or ESE's dual, so you'll be polling a lot of votes from other types that makes your poll null and void.
2. I've already ran multiple polls showing that most intuitive types such as INTPs, INFJs, ENFPs hate on SJs and report having most conflicts with them. Which is strange because SJs don't report the same thing, and goes to show that majority of xNxx types who hang out on this forum don't know how to type and stuff anyone they dislike into the SJ types.



ae1905 said:


> INTPs aren't the type to get in your face if they don't like you. And ESXJs may not be sensitive enough to realize what the INTPs irl think of them.


So you're saying that if INTPs could they would get into the faces of ESFJs and tell them exactly how much they hate them? That's so different from what's actually going on, even on this forum, including the INTPs who attest to having ESFJ friends and significant others. The one INTP-ESFJ couples that I know adore each other. They have 3 children and have been together for 20+ years -- so, so different from all the INTP/ESFJ hate implied in your post :happy:



ae1905 said:


> I see. So now *you're claiming that not only are there a disproportionate number of dual couples*,


Nowhere did I state this. Quit misquoting me in an effort to prove your pet agenda.



ae1905 said:


> but they're all so happy they have nothing to complain of! If there really are as many duals as you think then shouldn't there be quite a few unhappy ones, maybe not as a percentage of the total but in absolute numbers? So why don't we see them here? Does that have something to do with Fisher and Tiegers findings that most people don't choose their duals to begin with?! How about that!


There are all kinds, what's your point? You make a lot of absolutists assertions but have yet to prove that a single one of them is true.



ae1905 said:


> And maybe there are "10X" as many INFJ-ENTP threads because there are 10X as many such pairings.


You're confusing quantity with quality. If there is 10x times as many relationships of a certain kind, it doesn't mean those are good relationships. Especially if in these threads the posters are complaining about being so confused, asking how make things work and fix this or that relationship issue. Quantity =/= quality. Get it? So when you cites there being more INTJ-ENFP threads than INTJ-ESFP threads, that proved nothing.



ae1905 said:


> My point was that you only produced ONE example of a INFJ-ESTP couple, and a FAILED one, at that. NOT that there aren't other examples. YOU TRIED TO USE ONE EXAMPLE TO PROVE A POINT THAT CAN'T BE PROVEN BY ONE EXAMPLE ALONE. GET IT NOW?


Here's a story of INFJ-ESTP duality that is still going strong: My duality: ESTp & INFp Here's a photo of INFJ-ESTP married dual couple that has talked of their duality over facebook (due to privacy reason I cannot repost it here): Beta Examples - Page 3 And many, many more dual couples: Duals

It's only a wonder why couldn't you look up all of this yourself and why do you keep focusing on examples that don't work instead of considering those that do work and being impartial.

But now that you've asked for examples and were provided with some, I'm waiting for you to say "Oh two examples don't prove anything. It's only the quantity that proves the quality of relationships!"



ae1905 said:


> This sounds like revisionist apologia. If you like your dual you would come out and say it, not talk in circles like this.


Of course I like my duals. It's just that you keep misquoting me on purpose, because you have your pet agenda to prove, and I keep having to fix it which you later call "talking in circles". If you didn't misquote me, we would have been done with this debate much sooner.



ae1905 said:


> There are numerous studies pointing to the fact people prefer types other than their duals. I cited a few. There is also an abundance of evidence here supporting this idea. The only people trying to defend it are apologists for socionics theory.


You cannot use MBTI studies to prove anything about Socionics since 50% the people type as something different between the two typologies. *Since all the evidence you provided is MBTI related, all of it is void for Socionics.*


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> You cannot use MBTI studies to prove anything about Socionics since 50% the people type as something different between the two typologies. *Since all the evidence you provided is MBTI related, all of it is void for Socionics.*


MBTI and socionics are both based on Jung and the types translate to each other. So keep making excuses for why the overwhelming scientific evidence doesn't apply. It isn't my problem.

In any event, I can waste more time going back and forth with you but this is the bottom line. I cited several studies showing that people not only don't prefer dual relations but dual relations are _less _successful than other relations. Facts. You, otoh, can only cite a thread here and a video there and your own preferences, and so on. _Anecdotes. _Not scientific studies. So when you have some real evidence, come back and we'll talk. K?

Oh, and don't cancel your subsription of your bible, the Journal Socionics Quackery. You'll need it for future reference.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> Their results contradict other studies. And science works by testing and retesting hypotheses. One paper, especially a paper like this one doesn't evidence make.


It's pretty safe to say duality happens much more often than by chance unless you're saying there's something wrong with the study itself. Otherwise more studies can only really disprove the conclusions because otherwise saying duals end up married much, much more often than by chance has some pretty strong evidence supporting the claim.

As for previous studies, the Barron-Tiegers book you mentioned rates relationships by their Kiersey clubs, not by type and considering the pop psychology nature of that book it might not be very accurate. Who really knows though, no one seems to want to study type and marriage. Probably because it's more trouble than it's worth from the amount of heckling they'd receive.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

MNiS said:


> It's pretty safe to say duality happens much more often than by chance unless you're saying there's something wrong with the study itself. Otherwise more studies can only really disprove the conclusions because the conclusion drawn is that duals do end up married much more often than any other relationship type.
> 
> As for previous studies, the Barron-Tiegers book you mentioned rates relationships by their Kiersey clubs, not by type and considering the pop psychology nature of that book it might not be very accurate. Who really knows though, no one seems to want to study type and marriage. Probably because it's more trouble than it's worth.


If the incidence of dual relationships is as high as 45%, reproduce the result. And publish it in a reputable journal.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> If the incidence of dual relationships is as high as 45%, reproduce the result. And publish it in a reputable journal.


I'm not a researcher though, I was only explaining everything to you. XD You'll just have to wait for more research to come along and simply reserve judgment until then if you want to wait for it to become scientific fact.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> MBTI and socionics are both based on Jung and the types translate to each other. So keep making excuses for why the overwhelming scientific evidence doesn't apply. It isn't my problem.


That's not an excuse -- that's a fact. The polls done on this forum have very clearly shown that approximately half the posters on PerC don't type as the same type in MBTI and Socionics (links to polls are in my signature). The fact that they are both based on Jung means nothing. So keep closing your eyes and ignoring the evidence in favor of your own castles in the sky.



ae1905 said:


> In any event, I can waste more time going back and forth with you but this is the bottom line. I cited several studies showing that people not only don't prefer dual relations but dual relations are _less _successful than other relations. Facts. You, otoh, can only cite a thread here and a video there and your own preferences, and so on. _Anecdotes. _Not scientific studies. So when you have some real evidence, come back and we'll talk. K?


You've provided no evidence of any relation to Socionics. You've cites some crap MBTI studies published in some backwater journals that no one has even heard of, and claimed that they prove that Socionics duality doesn't work. When I pointed out that half the people don't even have the same type in Socionics as in MBTI, you've started frantically back-paddling calling it "an excuse" when there is plenty of evidence in support.



ae1905 said:


> Oh, and don't cancel your subsription of your bible, the Journal Socionics Quackery.


More baseless assertions. It doesn't stop with you, does it? I don't subscribe to any journals of socionics and prefer to remain agnostic, but I do have a very good radar for illogic and b.s. in arguments, and you've been graciously supplying copious amounts of it.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> That's not an excuse -- that's a fact. The *polls done on this forum have very clearly shown that approximately half the posters on PerC don't type as the same type in MBTI and Socionics *(links to polls are in my signature). The fact that they are both based on Jung means nothing. So keep closing your eyes and ignoring the evidence in favor of your own castles in the sky.


Funny how you point this out but omit it when citing threads on this site that purportedly support _your _claims. How does that work?



> You've provided no evidence of any relation to Socionics. *You've cites some crap MBTI studies published in some backwater journals *that no one has even heard of, and claimed that they prove that Socionics duality doesn't work. When I pointed out that half the people don't even have the same type in Socionics as in MBTI, you've started frantically back-paddling calling it "an excuse" when there is plenty of evidence in support.


Prof Helen Fisher, Biological Antropologist, Rutgers University
Dr Helen Fisher - Biological Anthropologist - Home Page

Paul Tiegers, degrees in psychology and operations research
Welcome to Personality Type!

Fisher found dopamine people prefer dopamine people and serotonin sertonin. Hard to confuse these two. Teigers found SJs prefer SJs. And NFs prefer NFs. They also found NFs are unhappiest with SJs, and vice versa. There's no way you can misconstrue an SJ as a NF. So it doesn't matter that it's MBTI. Unless you think these types can be confused, there is clearly a problem with the idea of duality, isn't there?



> More baseless assertions. It doesn't stop with you, does it? I don't subscribe to any journals of socionics and prefer to remain agnostic, but I do have a very good radar for illogic and b.s. in arguments, and you've been graciously supplying copious amounts of it.


Yeah, you've got such a good radar for bs you've swallowed socionics whole. It's illogical to believe something when there is no evidence to support it. I've supplied plenty of evidence to show the idea doesn't work. Who is the one having a little problem with logic?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

For the record, I have no special affection for my dual, ESFJs.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> Prof Helen Fisher, Biological Antropologist, Rutgers University
> Dr Helen Fisher - Biological Anthropologist - Home Page
> 
> Paul Tiegers, degrees in psychology and operations research
> ...


Ooo, credentials.



ae1905 said:


> Teigers found SJs prefer SJs. And NFs prefer NFs. They also found NFs are unhappiest with SJs, and vice versa. There's no way you can misconstrue an SJ as a NF. So it doesn't matter that it's MBTI. Unless you think these types can be confused, there is clearly a problem with the idea of duality, isn't there?


You do realize that MBTI typing is flawed, right? 80% of all people who take the MBTI change their type multiple times. The most frequent error being someone thinking they're an N when they're really an S and secondly males typing T and females typing F. I hate to say it, but the part where Fisher draws on MBTI data means she's probably using bad information.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

MNiS said:


> Ooo, credentials.
> 
> You do realize that MBTI typing is flawed, right? 80% of all people who take the MBTI change their type multiple times. The most frequent error being someone thinking they're an N when they're really an S and secondly males typing T and females typing F. I hate to say it, but the part where Fisher draws on MBTI data means she's probably using bad information.


I don't know about those numbers but is socionics any better? It relies on the same kinds of self-administered tests using the same kinds of questions measuring the same quantities.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> I don't know about those numbers but is socionics any better? It relies on the same kinds of self-administered tests using the same kinds of questions measuring the same quantities.


The reason why Socionics is more accurate is because there are many more criteria that determines a person's type and whether they're typed correctly or not. For example: If a person types themselves type "XYZ" and find that they don't like their dual or even their quadra then they're more likely to realize they're mistyped. That type of basis doesn't exist with MBTI.

Which is why if you think every person who should be your dual you've met so far isn't the type person you'd ever go for, then you should consider retyping yourself. Also, interactions work out much better and are easier to identify differences in person than online. I would never try to draw any conclusions based only on online interactions since in person interaction tends to be different because there's physical attraction, body language, expression and emotiveness, non-verbal communication, etc. 

If you're trying to meet more ESFJs or INTPs online, well you're kind of out of luck with ESFJs as they aren't very common on MBTI forums. ESFPs aren't too common in MBTI circles either. I'm only here because I have nothing better to do at the moment and typology has been a hobby of mine for a long time which I had discovered because of an ENFJ teacher I had a looong time ago.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Funny how you point this out but omit it when citing threads on this site that purportedly support _your _claims. How does that work?


You haven't adressed this point. The studies you shared are based on MBTI's concepts, which means they mean nothing in a Socionics context. For example,_ the letters aren't even the same in Socionics_. An Ni-Te type (MBTI INTJ) in Socionics is called INTp. This is because the last letter determines wether the type is of rational or irrational temperament. An irrational type is generally described as:



> Tend to wait and see, more spontaneous.
> Are more often flexible and tolerant.
> Change their decisions frequently.
> Tend to start new things without finishing them.
> ...




​Rationality and irrationality - Wikisocion

ILI is an irrational type. How does that correlate with the fact that an INTJ is a judging type in MBTI?


I'm not saying Socionics is flooded with scientific research either but I don't think your studies prove anything in a Socionics context. I don't even think Socionics posesses very efficient predictive power in the department of relational compatibility, although I see a lot of truth in many of the things it claims and I think it is a good theory of information processing.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

mav04 said:


> dom/auxillary-you mean leading and creative? Because dom/auxillary is MBTI. leading and creative is Socionics.


You were comparing types from both systems, so I thought it would be clearer if I provide MBTI's counterpart to "ego" within brackets.


----------



## mav04 (Dec 19, 2010)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> You haven't adressed this point. The studies you shared are based on MBTI's concepts, which means they mean nothing in a Socionics context. For example,_ the letters aren't even the same in Socionics_. An Ni-Te type (MBTI INTJ) in Socionics is called INTp. This is because the last letter determines wether the type is of rational or irrational temperament. An irrational type is generally described as:
> 
> 
> [/LIST]
> ...


I've been finding a good bit of holes in the logic of Socionics myself. I love the ideas in Socionics, but it's still has to sort of be put together more. 

This quote you just put of Socionics' description of what irrational means, is one example. I always test an INFP in MBTI. I mostly test Infj in Socionics. I thought to myself, great, now I understand! All introverts have to change the last letter. So, I expected to see a description of INFP (MBTI) because INFj's in Socionics is really INFP in the MBTI. Instead, INFj is described as "rational" with the description, quote:

Rationality and irrationality - Wikisocion

Rationals

Tend to plan ahead, make decisions early.
Are more often rigid and stubborn.
Do not like to change their decisions.
Tend to finish what they started.
Usually have stiff movements.
Usually more 'authoritarian' leadership style.
Low stress tolerance.

This is not me at all. I'm diffidently the description of what irrational means. 

What I'm getting from this is maybe the Socionics test is flawed, since it gave me INFj when the description of INFp is really me. Or, maybe you don't change the last letter of the introvert. 

The MBTI test gave me INFP, and the description is me. :crazy:


----------



## mav04 (Dec 19, 2010)

k


----------



## mav04 (Dec 19, 2010)

MNiS said:


> Ooo, credentials.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that MBTI typing is flawed, right? 80% of all people who take the MBTI change their type multiple times. The most frequent error being someone thinking they're an N when they're really an S and secondly males typing T and females typing F. I hate to say it, but the part where Fisher draws on MBTI data means she's probably using bad information.


I've been on the INTJ, INFP, & ESTP MBTI facebook forums, and they seem sure about their "type." Personally, I have typed INFP (MBTI) for 23 years now. However, the first time I took the MBTI, I typed ENFP, because I was pushed to socialize in college from my boyfriend at the time. But, I've typed INFj in Socionics 4 out of 6 tries. Also, the descriptions of the types in Socionics are a bit of a mess. And, the descriptions of rational and irrational are the same for Socionics and the MBTI. For example, the MBTI claims the J's are considered "rational". Socionics claims that I am the rational type as INFj which I'm not.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

mav04 said:


> I've been finding a good bit of holes in the logic of Socionics myself. I love the ideas in Socionics, but it's still has to sort of be put together more.
> 
> This quote you just put of Socionics' description of what irrational means, is one example. I always test an INFP in MBTI. I mostly test Infj in Socionics. I thought to myself, great, now I understand! All introverts have to change the last letter. So, I expected to see a description of INFP (MBTI) because INFj's in Socionics is really INFP in the MBTI. Instead, INFj is described as "rational" with the description, quote:
> 
> ...


If that is your situation, then I'd question the test. Maybe you aren't an EII (INFj) after all. But you've got to keep in mind that descriptions only mean so much and it's a safer bet to look at the cognition when typing yourself or anybody. And one of the advantages (or not, depending on how you look at it) Socionics has over MBTI is that it offers so many more criteria you can use when typing yourself, like the reinin dichotomies, quadras or the intertype relations. You can use all of those things to help you find your type, where in MBTI you mostly rely on a 4-function model, dichotomies, descriptions and a lot of speculation.


----------



## mav04 (Dec 19, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> I don't know about those numbers but is socionics any better? It relies on the same kinds of self-administered tests using the same kinds of questions measuring the same quantities.


And yet ANOTHER opposite claim of duals is found. They claim the person with the the same last 2 letters (J/P) (everything else different) are not duals. Even if the last to letters are the same with everything else being equal are not dual. For instance, ISTJ are not dual with INFJ. INFP is still not dual with ESTP. All quoted from the site I got this information from: 
This is a free Socionics relationship matching analysis. See what you think: 

Start quote:

The 41 Questions Personality Test is based on the four personality indicators originally developed by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung.

The Relationship Compatibility Match feature is inspired by the theory of Socionics and Antoni Kepinski's theory of information metabolism. ESTJ and INFP

Your relationship type: "Antagonism"
Antagonism is a relationship built on conflict that is unnoticeable during the early stage of the romance. The partners are physically attracted to each other and that attraction is strong enough to cause them to bond. However, this romance is the least compatible of any pairing. If it weren't for the physical attraction, that fact would be obvious to both participants from the start.

One person is attracted to what is repellant in the other because of lack of confidence. Weak character traits might seem alluring at first. Either one or both partners might be self-destructive people without realizing it. Over time, they will have almost non-stop conflicting emotions and arguments. There is simply no psychological compatibility between them.

Often this is a relationship that includes mental or physical abuse. One individual settles for a conflicting partner who brings misery 
estj and infp:
because it seems 
better than nothing. 
Antagonism is a relationship built on impending disaster. If the couple manages to get along well enough to avoid disaster, they might still be seriously unhappy. The relationship may continue although it is not good for either one of them. 
End quote.
Relationship Compatibilty Match [Beta] - 41 Questions


----------



## mav04 (Dec 19, 2010)

*Forgot to put the INFP-ISTP relations*



mav04 said:


> And yet ANOTHER opposite claim of duals is found. They claim the person with the the same last 2 letters (J/P) (everything else different) are not duals. Even if the last to letters are the same with everything else being equal are not dual. For instance, ISTJ are not dual with INFJ. INFP is still not dual with ESTP. All quoted from the site I got this information from:
> This is a free Socionics relationship matching analysis. See what you think:
> 
> Start quote:
> ...


INFP-ISTP Relations:Your relationship type: "Conscience"
Conscience is the relationship in which each partner has a different set of values. One person misunderstands the other and vice versa. This mutual chasm of disagreement creates either fear or fascination depending on the other personality traits each one brings into the romance. Some people enjoy conflict and although aware of the difficulties ahead allow the relationship to develop into love and marriage. Friends and family are very aware of the conflict that exists and it makes them uncomfortable to witness it.

In the case of one partner reminding the other of a person who made a strong impression on him or her during childhood, this may be the attraction in the beginning. Of course, the reason isn't known or understood very well. There may be a need to relive the earlier experience whether it was good or bad. It may be a case of feeling as if another bad experience is deserved.

The partners in such a relationship find that the discomfort of a bad romance fills a need to be punished for some unknown reason. This is why the conscience union may endure regardless of happiness or unhappiness. The partners may wallow in misery with each other for years and in some cases each will go on to enter into another relationship that brings the same level of unhappiness.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

mav04 said:


> I've been on the INTJ, INFP, & ESTP MBTI facebook forums, and they seem sure about their "type." Personally, I have typed INFP (MBTI) for 23 years now. However, the first time I took the MBTI, I typed ENFP, because I was pushed to socialize in college from my boyfriend at the time. But, I've typed INFj in Socionics 4 out of 6 tries. Also, the descriptions of the types in Socionics are a bit of a mess. And, the descriptions of rational and irrational are the same for Socionics and the MBTI. For example, the MBTI claims the J's are considered "rational". Socionics claims that I am the rational type as INFj which I'm not.


No, MBTI screwed up on the concept of rationality and irrationality for introverts. Ni and Si are both irrational elements while Ti and Fi are both rational. Yet the Ni and Si dominants in MBTI are labeled judgers while the Ti and Fi dominants are labeled perceivers.

So MBTI did mess up irrationality and rationality. If you consider yourself an EII but not a rational type then that's more likely due to a personal reason that's specific to you. I mean, these issues like the J/P switch weren't just pulled out of nowhere. There's a pretty solid basis for saying the switch should exist.


----------



## mav04 (Dec 19, 2010)

MNiS said:


> No, MBTI screwed up on the concept of rationality and irrationality for introverts. Ni and Si are both irrational elements while Ti and Fi are both rational. Yet the Ni and Si dominants in MBTI are labeled judgers while the Ti and Fi dominants are labeled perceivers.
> 
> So MBTI did mess up irrationality and rationality. If you consider yourself an EII but not a rational type then that's more likely due to a personal reason that's specific to you. I mean, these issues like the J/P switch weren't just pulled out of nowhere. There's a pretty solid basis for saying the switch should exist.


There is another theory that says only the intuitives should switch. But, they didn't say how the extroverted intuitives should go. I wrote the link on another post I made. 

Yes, I understand the Myers-Briggs' system claims the function that is extroverted is used instead. However, the MBTI is more consistent and, the entire development of it's theories has more structure. Whereas, Socionics doesn't have one person doing it. There are theories all over the place. I just decided to accept it as it is, and hope it gets more consistent and organized. Socionics have great depth.


----------

