# How is duality truly justified?



## ParetoCaretheStare (Jan 18, 2012)

Can anything truly be as perfect as it is read and perceived by others?


----------



## Ching (Mar 7, 2015)

It's as simple as parallelizing ego and super-id functions.


The leading function is an individual's most dominant psychic function. It describes in general terms the person's most comfortable thinking patterns, perspective on life, state of mind, and behavioral style as well as their positive motivational forces (what they pursue most vigorously when they have a choice. The influence of the base function on perception and core values is so strong that people tend to project these values onto other people: everyone else surely must want the same things that your base function strives for.

... matches with suggestive function in such way :

The subject finds it difficult to be overwhelmed by this element, since it perfectly complements and drives the activity of the leading function. The more it is present in his daily life, the more he will naturally adapt to its presence (see dualization). They are easily entertained by this kind of information, and its sustained presence creates a soothing psychological effect.


And :

Creative function describes the primary mode of application of the base function. If the base function forms the core of the individual's personal quests and interests ("What's in it for me?", "What do I want to be?"), the creative function describes his main instrument for interacting with the rest of society ("How do I make contact with other people?"). In a person's value system, creative function activities seem less personally significant than his base function activities.
Use of the creative function — while frequent and effortless — seems to turn on and off. One moment the person may seem highly interested in this aspect, and the next — totally indifferent.

... matches with mobilizing function in such way :

Help in mobilizing function is appreciated, but past a certain point is seen as excessive. The subject's innate lack of balance in the mobilizing function can easily cause him to indulge in it recklessly or to sorely neglect it. It is best used in support of the suggestive function.
If too much of this element is ambient, the person will get bored or even become repelled. He sees it as a necessary part of good living, but not a primary life goal.


We could do the same thing with super-ego and id blocks but unfortunately I'm too lazy for it. Still hope it helps.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

?


----------



## Tao Jones (Jul 9, 2016)

I think it depends on a lot of factors. I know many duals, but there's only one with whom I feel powerfully "fulfilled" as described by socionists (and even there, there are problems sometimes!). This is because there are a lot of other systems in which people can be compatible or not (if one dual is sx/so and the other is sx/sp, they're going to have problems!), and there are a tons of things that AREN'T type related that matter a lot for compatibility. Compatibility in intelligence, health, age, culture, character, interests, etc. is just as important, if not more important, than Socionics compatibility.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

@ParetoCaretheStare

It's simply just a suggestion that duality type relationships should play out nicely, likewise with the other type relations they have; it's all suggestion.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

If we accept duality then we must also accept "valued" functions. "Valued" function corresponds to _importance. _Preferred, high dimensional or "strong" function corresponds to _interest_. Okay, so how can functions that we _usually_ don't find interesting be "valued"? Because we are _unwillingly _neglecting those functions, i.e. Super-Id in Model A. LSE forces the EII to consider Te and Si.

EDIT:

We are in a sense neglecting Id functions as well. The difference is that we (most of us) have used those functions extensively in our childhood, so they are (often) obvious and boring to us.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

It's mostly justified by observations that duals have least issues communicating and are most supportive and complimentary of each other than other type matches. 



ParetoCaretheStare said:


> Can anything truly be as perfect as it is read and perceived by others?


No, but some things approximate perfection closer than others.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

The justification is really up to you as an informant of the theory. 

The definition, which may help you more, is the intertype relationship whose flow of information between the two people involved is least obstructed, most desired, and most supportive of unconscious blind areas under the context of shared type values. 

Bear in mind an important nuance, that the theory is at the level of info type and flow, not content. You could meet a Dual with whom you very easily chat, understand quite well, and feel comfortable with energetically, but completely disagree with opinion-wise. This facile flow of information can be positive or negative to equal extents; it is easy to absolute despise a Dual because of how clearly you understand them and object to it, and absolutely love a Dual if you have shared backgrounds and understandings that flow equally smoothly. I would go so far as to say that you will be predisposed to see_ most_ Duals in a positive light - but it isn't perfect, and isn't always even positive. It's up to the Dual him/herself. 

A few other notes: first, Duality does in fact require vast differences in personality to be successful. The relationship thrives on differences that are pleasant and intriguing to each other, _*not*_ on similarity. "Perfection" in the relationship means healthy fights, arguments, disagreements sometimes.

Secondly, subtype has a very significant impact on the potential of Dual relations. Same subtype vs. opposite subtype Duality are in my experience nearly different relations altogether. Opposite subtype Duality can take a long time to establish, lead to annoyance, and more superficiality, and may possibly even be slightly "assymetric" like Benefit and Supervision are, or more like opposite rationality. Same subtype Duality is extremely comfortable more like the usual type descriptions, again, so long as values and other factors are compatible.


----------

