# Why Duality Doesn't Always Work



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I've been doing a bit of research, as well as some observing within the social groups I'm involved with, and noticed that duality doesn't always work the way many socionics resources says it should. After looking at various resources and the interrelationships between concepts between them, I've come up with a few possible reasons why duality may not always work. This isn't an exhaustive list, and could most certainly use a bit of sprucing up and expansion. 


*1.) Barriers to understanding what you need
*Your dual is your functional complement, such that the cognitive functions your dual uses comfortably are ones you could probably use better. If you're not aware of this, however, it doesn't really matter how nice of a fit your functions are, because you're not as likely to react on whatever "attraction" might exist on a purely cognitive level. I've seen people overlook their duals for people that satisfy more perceivably "immediate" needs, which may or may not be determined by that person him/herself. Examples - dating someone for their looks alone, or to bring someone home who satisfies mom and dad. 

In general you may not notice the match with your dual because you haven't yet developed your non-conscious super id block. You won't experience the attraction as viscerally as you would if you knew what you really needed. Additional N.B. for those who know socionics, there is a fine line between awareness, and the Pygmalion effect - if a theory says it, it should be true. 

*2.) Instinctive variants are mismatched
*Your dual's complementary functioning won't mean anything if you're not on the same wavelength with them in terms of what needs you have for daily life. If you're an so/sx, for example, and your dual is an sp/so, you'll be fine in the social realm but (possibly severely) lack the intense personal connection most sx's crave. If the two are not working towards the satisfaction of the same goals, they'll have a cognitive fire to warm themselves with, but go hungry, with little food to cook over it for a shared meal. 

Additionally, all relationships enter periods of turbulence, and duality in particular is said to be characterized by particularly important moments of vulnerability, in which the pair has to work through a difficulty while depending on their "shadow." If the two have the same goal in mind, the cognitive overlap will seal the deal further - if not, it will crumble, because they are working towards entirely different goals. 

Summary: functions are independent of lifestyle tendencies.

*3.) Dominant judging functions 
*It has been noted on some socionics fora, both conceptually and empirically, that dominant judging types (j's) and those who use a creative judging function to very high proficiencies have some measure of difficulty reconciling strong beliefs with their dual. This means a thinker and a feeler dominant - and if the two are inherently motivated to satisfy a need to judge, they may not take the time to _perceive _the other's take. This could lead to a total, sound writoff of the dual type, sometimes as a whole population. This is evident on our forum, I have seen, with Fi and Te leads, as well as Ni + strong Te creatives and SEE. 

I have also noticed such phenomena with perceiving types, but the argument against the dual type seems to involve the judging function more than the perceiving. This entire theory is more just a possible explanation, more research would need to be done. But, some evidence supports it. 


Again, just a few problems I've noticed so far, but additional observations would be helpful for everyone. Duality is clearly not a "cure all" situation, as some authors such as Filatove romanticized.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

I wanted to add that Socionics intertype relationships are based on compatibility in communication, the ease or difficulty with which two people understand each other. Socionics does not cover emotional compatibility between people. When people of dual types meet, they may find that while their communication progresses smoothly, they are not very emotionally compatible and lack the emotional impetus to start up friendship or relationship of any kind. This is one of the reasons that I've seen duals pass each other by.

Good point about the instincts. I think they contribute to interpersonal incompatibilities and compatibilities just as much as jungian cognitive types.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I would like to highlight that I don't think just instincts matter, but enneagram as a whole does, as enneagram as a whole are what motivates us in life. If you and I think the same but have widely different goals in mind due to different enneagram, we would still have problems communicating in how to achieve that goal. I am for example quite ellergic to enneagram 1s and 2s, and this is regardless of the MBTI/socionics type. I do however get along great with most 4s, 5s and 9s. Possibly because these are my tritype fixes too.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

At this point I've given up on enneagram, it doesn't seem to offer any objective insights besides merely answers for the sake of answers; confirmation bias is a big factor in it. As I think about it, I only see the theory making sense when I decide to "believe" in it, mould myself around it. To an extent MBTI and Socionics feel a bit like that too since there are no objective answers it provides.


Just to add a caveat, I think MBTI or Socionics may have a little hope if its 8 functional dichotomies objectively exist, but that has little to say about people since trait theory is the one that makes more sense with regards to personalities and its as complex as hell.

With relationships there no answers here unless somebody wants to adopt these theories into their weltanschauung. Traits are more complicated and it hard to know what type of people have trait combinations that are compatible with you; plus having compatible traits is just half the battle, since the environment matters. Has the person desired partner adopted compatible attitudes? We are neither fully blank slates personality wise, genes do influence our traits/personalities, but they aren't the full story since the environment is important.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> At this point I've given up on enneagram, it doesn't seem to offer any objective insights besides merely answers for the sake of answers; confirmation bias is a big factor in it. As I think about it, I only see the theory making sense when I decide to "believe" in it, mould myself around it. To an extent MBTI and Socionics feel a bit like that too since there are no objective answers it provides.
> 
> 
> Just to add a caveat, I think MBTI or Socionics may have a little hope if its 8 functional dichotomies objectively exist, but that has little to say about people since trait theory is the one that makes more sense with regards to personalities and its as complex as hell.
> ...


Not everything can be objectively quantified, including personalities. Personalities are complex and can be defined in many different ways (behavior, thought process, values, interests etc.). I think people get lost in wanting objective empirical evidence when everything may not have such evidence (as of current knowledge due to the prejudices of the era we're in). To discount a piece of knowledge for which you have trouble understanding is stripping life of its delicacy, and limiting your own perception. 

Enneagram is based off of behaviors and motivations, you have to dig deep into yourself to find your true enneagram type. You are correct that people can mold themselves to believe themselves to be an enneagram type the are not, but that is the mistake of the individual not the system.

Funny thing is when I first got into MBTI I learned about enneagram, I tried to understand and I thought I fit in every enneagram type. I pushed it off with the thought that it was rubbish and people can fit into any category. After a while of suffering with intrusive thoughts and going through a rough time, I started delving deeper into JCF, personalities, and my own individual psych. It was a huge learning experience and my intrusive thoughts stopped, or shall I say I've come to understand them which in turn stopped my negative emotions towards them which stopped them. What ended up happening though was I gave enneagram another chance. I learned from past mistakes that m own subjective biases can get in the way of studying theoretical systems, so I jumped back into enneagram, I started to read the types and separate them from thought processes, due to understanding that it is a system of behaviors and motivations. I eventually came to my own type begin an 8 and saw how JCF and enneagram differ in approach to personality. A year ago I thought it was nonsense, now I see what it truly is. The point of my story is to show that with time you develop mental tools to learn things you may have been incapable of learning before. Its best to keep an open mind to everything because it is a possibility that you could be wrong as I have many times before in my life and so has everyone else. I'm not judging you either, just giving my personal experience so you may find something in my words that may help you one day just as I learn from others every day and as we all do.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I thought the enneagram was garbage at first, but after working with it a bit, I've come to acknowledge that it's really no less-principled than the JCF's, socionics, or Model A looking bottoms-up. Top-down, it appears that the other systems are more structurally consistent, but they're really just building one thing on top of another. With the enneagram, the essences of each type are much less structured than Jung, and knowledge of them requires one to do a bit of his/her own conceptualizing. You have to develop vague but accurate senses of what each really mean. I kept realizing that the ITR's just _weren't working_ as well as I had idealized, and wondered why. 

And of course, it's because the JCF's aren't the sum of a being - and the ITR's are based almost entirely upon the functions. They're really just the cognitive architecture - without nod to the foci of interest at which they are directed. 

I noticed this with an ESFP friend I've been "close" with for several years now. We're both fairly mentally healthy by most standards. I noticed that while we had a lot of fun together and I felt generally comfortable around her, I also realized that there was something really missing from the interactions. They were stimulating, but I didn't feel the close connection Filatova talks about. I knew I was generally understood, but I was still suspicious that if I really needed to depend on her for something important, she would be sort of aloof and on a different planet. Turns out she's sp/so, and I'm sx/sp. Sx, it turns out, really needs to feel a strong connective pulse with a partner - didn't feel it, and non-dualesque interactions resulted. And the result is that I think the cognitive compatibility that is advertised to rear "perfect" relationships _isn't _everything. 

Obviously, that's not a "mechanical" way of evaluating the system, but it's only logical to know that not everything in life fits neatly into a box.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> I thought the enneagram was garbage at first, but after working with it a bit, I've come to acknowledge that it's really no less-principled than the JCF's, socionics, or Model A looking bottoms-up. Top-down, it appears that the other systems are more structurally consistent, but they're really just building one thing on top of another. With the enneagram, the essences of each type are much less structured than Jung, and knowledge of them requires one to do a bit of his/her own conceptualizing. You have to develop vague but accurate senses of what each really mean. I kept realizing that the ITR's just _weren't working_ as well as I had idealized, and wondered why.
> 
> And of course, it's because the JCF's aren't the sum of a being - and the ITR's are based almost entirely upon the functions. They're really just the cognitive architecture - without nod to the foci of interest at which they are directed.
> 
> ...


So with enneagram everyone has all the wings but the find themselves leaning to one a bit more than the others? Looking back at my depressive stage I can see ennegream 4 being the most likely one; however at the same time I know that under prolonged frustration (especially at my early teens with immaturity) I'm cruel judgmental blaming others.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> At this point I've given up on enneagram, it doesn't seem to offer any objective insights besides merely answers for the sake of answers; confirmation bias is a big factor in it. As I think about it, I only see the theory making sense when I decide to "believe" in it, mould myself around it. To an extent MBTI and Socionics feel a bit like that too since there are no objective answers it provides.


I found enneagram to be a useful addition to jungian types and particularly relevant in case of Socionics.

In case of Socionics, some socionists rely heavily on intertype relations when trying to settle someone's type. If the subject's relation is harmonious with members of certain quadra, they are likely to type that person into that quadra. However, enneagram types and instinct stackings add their own system of intertype relations into the mix. One can feel attraction to someone else not because they are from same quadra or one's dual, but rather on basis of enneagram and instincts. People who omit enneagram and only stick to Socionics often do not realize this, and are thus prone to typing whoever they like into their own quadra not realizing that the attraction they are experiencing is rooted elsewhere. For this reason I see enneagram as almost a necessary supplement to studying socionics.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> So with enneagram everyone has all the wings but the find themselves leaning to one a bit more than the others? Looking back at my depressive stage I can see ennegream 4 being the most likely one; however at the same time I know that under prolonged frustration (especially at my early teens with immaturity) I'm cruel judgmental blaming others.


Sorry if you already know all of this, it wasn't evident in your post, and I thought it would help others who were thinking about the topic.

But no, everyone has -



A core type, numbered 1-9
The core type describes your primary motivations, and the patterns of behavior that it causes 
Each core type "integrates," or always transforms into a specific other type when the person is in a stage of development 
 Each core type "disintegrates," or always transforms into a specific other type when the person is in a stage of stress 
 
 

A "wing," whose number is directly before or after the number of the core type
The wing gives a "flavor" to your core type, and serves as a secondary type in dialogue with the core 
The wing can integrate or disintegrate to a specific other type just as the core type does 
 
 

An instinctual variant "stack," which describes your primary animalistic motivations. Sex/close relationships (sx), social/population wellbeing (so) and self preservation/survival (sp).
These actually play a direct role in what one likes to converse over, and how 
Sx demands closeness and exciting experiences (not necessarily sexual), Sp wants to feel secure, and So wants belonging in a group 
The second variant often determines small talk conversation topics. If it's Sx, the person may talk about interesting occurrences that sparked them or relationships with friends, Sp will talk about food, health, exercise, travel, etc, and So may talk about politics, culture, etc. 
Hence, if duals don't share complementary instincts, they may not find their partner able to satisfy their needs 
 

I tend to see your posts as conveying qualities of type 1. Type 1 is principled, judgmental, austere, consistent, and seeks reform when something goes against what it knows to be essential. 1's fear corruption and being "bad." When 1's disintegrate, they debate for awhile. When they lose their grip, they become tight-lipped and stubborn like an unhealthy 4, and blame others for the situation at hand. When they integrate, they become more laid-back, merry, and playful like a type 7. The general integration/disintegration paths are 1-7-5-8-2-4 and 3-6-9

Any set of cognitive functions could be used in this field of motivation, but an INTJ 1, for example, would be plucky about the principles they believe to be inherent, and try and correct flaws or inconsistencies they see (as cyamitide did, at post #2).


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Sorry if you already know all of this, it wasn't evident in your post, and I thought it would help others who were thinking about the topic.
> 
> But no, everyone has -
> 
> ...


I meant to say that I relate more to the listed unhealthy levels of a "type 4"; under my prolonged depression I: 
*"When dreams fail, become self-inhibiting and angry at self, depressed and alienated from self and others, blocked and emotionally paralyzed. Ashamed of self, fatigued and unable to function." *I didn't relate to type 1's: * "Can be highly dogmatic, self-righteous, intolerant, and inflexible. Begin dealing in absolutes: they alone know "The Truth." Everyone else is wrong: very severe in judgments, while rationalizing own actions."*. I've been looking at type 1 and 4 a lot and realized that type 4 is a lot more accurate. Under healthy levels "growth", it states that there is a lean towards type 1.

But still you may be right since I'm still confused since to an extent, I can see myself in those two types. But I think this is ultimately what leaves me unconvinced since there is no clear cut out model for me to fit in.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

But that's because when 1 disintegrate (and can someone quote this, as he can't read my posts) they become like unhealthy 4s, meaning you think and look like and appear as a 4. They thus become unhealthy 4s, but they are not 4s because they do not share the core motivation of 4.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LeaT said:


> But that's because when 1 disintegrate (and can someone quote this, as he can't read my posts) they become like unhealthy 4s, meaning you think and look like and appear as a 4. They thus become unhealthy 4s, but they are not 4s because they do not share the core motivation of 4.


Quoted


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

I relate to the strengths and core motivations of the type 4 description ironically, a self orientated direction in life; I don't really care about being fair and objective as a desired motivation, its more of a byproduct of the fact that it makes like easier because people are fundamentally irrational and difficult to navigate through. 


> *Basic Fear:* That they have no identity or personal significance
> *Basic Desire:* To find themselves and their significance (to create an identity)


But still I'm not happy with ennegram, the more I read about it the more I realise that it doesn't make enough sense. It requires the people to contort themselves to the given parameters the authors have generate, sure I understand that some people can subjective derive helpful meaning from it, but for me it doesn't seem to cut it. The more I look into myself, the more I realise that I seem to have split personalities going by the categorizations ennegram makes. Even reducing myself to type1 type4 and type7, doesn't make enough sense because I'm inconsistent. The guy who wrote this appears to really heavily on confirmation bias, its too subjective


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

A 1 can have those things as a part of their perfectionism though. Unless you claim you're currently an integrated 4 which I don't think you do, considering that you seem to think of yourself as currently mentally unhealthy. Also, tritype theory. Look into it. It perfectly addresses what you just wrote. I can't decide between 5 and 4 either, but it's fine, I'm both due to tritype theory.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> I think people get lost in wanting objective empirical evidence when everything may not have such evidence (as of current knowledge due to the prejudices of the era we're in). To discount a piece of knowledge for which you have trouble understanding is stripping life of its delicacy, and limiting your own perception.


Who doesn't limit their perception in ways?




> Its best to keep an open mind to everything because it is a possibility that you could be wrong as I have many times before in my life and so has everyone else.


There is a decision to be made about what fits in the 24 hours in a day so you can't keep an open mind to *everything*.




Boolean11 said:


> The more I look into myself, the more I realise that I seem to have split personalities going by the categorizations ennegram makes. Even reducing myself to type1 type4 and type7, doesn't make enough sense because I'm inconsistent. The guy who wrote this appears to really heavily on confirmation bias, its too subjective


That's ok, your criticism applies to MBTI or socionics just as much.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Who doesn't limit their perception in ways?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read the quote in my signature, I think Jung explains it well. Also yes in a 24 hr day there are decisions to be made and those decisions could potentially be wrong. A decision to be made is one out of many, there are many decisions that could lead you in the right direction and there are many decisions that could be wrong. I keep my mind open to all the possibilities no matter what but that's just how I think. Even after A decision is made I like to go over all the possibilities I could've made and see which one is a better choice logically to store in my head for future reference. I understand that everything is subjective and we could all be wrong if we don't have the right tools to decipher the world around us in the most accurate ways. We all limit our perception in ways, we all do not have the answers in every single thing, we only have the individual tools we developed throughout our lives to decipher what we perceive around us. I don't think you will agree with me on these thoughts, I could be wrong tho.

BTW In a 24 hr day, you don't need to make a decision n specific theories like personality theories, so its best to keep an open mind that you may be wrong on what you perceive theoretically just like I may be also.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> Read the quote in my signature, I think Jung explains it well.


Doesn't that quote actually go against the idea of personality typology theories?  Funny.




> Also yes in a 24 hr day there are decisions to be made and those decisions could potentially be wrong. A decision to be made is one out of many, there are many decisions that could lead you in the right direction and there are many decisions that could be wrong. I keep my mind open to all the possibilities no matter what but that's just how I think. Even after A decision is made I like to go over all the possibilities I could've made and see which one is a better choice logically to store in my head for future reference. I understand that everything is subjective and we could all be wrong if we don't have the right tools to decipher the world around us in the most accurate ways. We all limit our perception in ways, we all do not have the answers in every single thing, we only have the individual tools we developed throughout our lives to decipher what we perceive around us. I don't think you will agree with me on these thoughts, I could be wrong tho.


Ahaha good thing you put "could be wrong tho" at the end ;P We partially agree. See more below about where we don't agree. But the rest okay. 




> BTW In a 24 hr day, you don't need to make a decision n specific theories like personality theories, so its best to keep an open mind that you may be wrong on what you perceive theoretically just like I may be also.


Well to me keeping an open mind just means be willing to take in more information if it comes up. And evaluate this information only when it's possible to evaluate it well enough - I'm quite strict on that actually, e.g. I pick up and accept a pattern only if I'm sure it is a pattern -, otherwise just store it as is. I think that's good&efficient enough  Contrast this with someone who comes at it from the other direction, leaning towards apophenia a lot more, that can mean waste of time with going in the wrong direction(s) and all in all, leading to wrong perception just as much as the perception of someone who tries to be more objective with evaluation and *supposedly* missing some things. -.-

To go back to topic, the duality thing is a good example of how I'm strict about evaluation and so I do agree with OP to quite some extent, I too think that duality isn't as simple as it's made out to be because I see too many counterexamples. That instinctual variants thing especially makes sense 


Btw, because it's you I'm replying to, I recall now that our old discussion was left without a reply from your part, were my questions too good , or you got busy or something? You don't have to answer in this thread here as it would be too OT but if the non-replying wasn't intentional then feel free to make a reply over there


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Doesn't that quote actually go against the idea of personality typology theories?  Funny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No the quote goes against empirical evidence, it shows that not everything is statistical since we are only grasping a portion of what we want to see. When people don't grasp synchronicity its because of lack of empirical evidence, but some things in life are incommensurable. I tend to focus on all patterns, on all possibilities, its a matter of keeping a completely open mind, its a matter of seeing every possibility including the unlikely ones to break them down and see what i can pull out of them. I still think keeping an open mind, a completely open mind to everything could help people in the long run. I see thinking about all the possibilities that could potentially be possible is an open mind though but that's just my Ne talking. You say its when new ideas come up, but its being able to be receptive to it and its a matter of new idea. If each possibility is a new idea then it further opens the mind. I can only go off the definition not a connotation that may be put on the concept.



> o·pen-mind·ed (pn-mndd)
> adj.
> Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others


No it wasn't that your questions were too good, I even contemplated answering them but I saw it as pointless from that point on. We obviously disagreed on what we thought about Socionics n comparison to MBTI. The discussion from that point on was repetitive and it was leading no where. So I decided not to answer, our thought processes work differently, so I accepted that you wouldn't see what I see, others understand it quite well, others didn't. If someone is set in their views then its pointless to argue a point unless there was some kind of objective evidence, which everything we was talking about was purely subjective impressions from both sides. In stand by what I say, if the principles of two systems are the same (the first system that made the systems) then there may be two different descriptions of the functions or types but they are just two different angles of the same type/function. Also by the way, when I said "King" I meant "Jung", auto correct messed me up.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> No the quote goes against empirical evidence, it shows that not everything is statistical since we are only grasping a portion of what we want to see.


Ah okay.




> When people don't grasp synchronicity its because of lack of empirical evidence, but some things in life are incommensurable.


Actually, most things about people are, at this point 




> No it wasn't that your questions were too good


Hey that was a joke 




> The discussion from that point on was repetitive and it was leading no where.


Well I would have liked to understand a few things about your viewpoint thus I asked some very direct questions in the last post so an answer to those would have been useful.

I didn't need objective evidence as answer to some of those direct questions, I just wanted to see your logic in your reasoning. Not objective logic, just some more details on your structural logic. =P




> So I decided not to answer, our thought processes work differently, so I accepted that you wouldn't see what I see


I disagree that this depends on thought processes. That is a surprisingly closed-minded opinion from someone who claims to have a mind that's so very open-minded to every possibility, even the unlikely possibilities. I'm not joking or trying to insult here, this is a glaring inconsistency from your part. Apologies, as I can't resist pointing out those 

Also surprisingly closed-minded giving up so fast. I never give up the hope that I can discuss things with people to understand each other more even if we still don't agree at the end.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Ah okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're right, that was a bit closed minded on my part. I saw it as pointless, but even still I should have answered your questions if you truly wanted to understand. I'll go back to that thread and answer your questions in a little.


----------

