Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 18/01/2006, 09:58 PM
Nyx's Avatar
Nyx Nyx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 226
Default Question

How strongly do type relations actually effect interpersonal relations? In other words, can two people with similar interests and a strong attraction to one another (assuming all other conditions are favorable) carry out a happy relationship regardless of their type dynamics? Some of the descriptions I read have painted a pretty dismal picture (especially for conflicting relations). Can't individuals learn to work around their differences?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18/01/2006, 10:02 PM
rmcnew's Avatar
rmcnew rmcnew is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 111
Default Re: Question

Heck, people who are conflicting types can be strongly attracted to each other, marry, and stay together for years. But, that does not mean they are not pulling their hair out in frustration towards each other. That is usually what happens after being in a conflict relationship for a while.

So, my answer to you is that type relationships are a personal choice. Just remember that with every choice there is a consequence you might have to live with.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 18/01/2006, 10:24 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: Question

If I will tell you that do not eat takeaway pizza tomorrow or you’ll get food poisoning, there is no real reason for you to believe me except that it can happen naturally. However, if you go ahead and get it anyway and get food poisoning , you would wish you believed me but it would be too late. My point is, unless you actually get yourself involved in an incompatible relationship you will never know. On the other hand you do not have to commit yourself unnecessarily so that you can jump the ship when it start sinking, hence learning the truth anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 19/01/2006, 02:08 PM
Nyx's Avatar
Nyx Nyx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 226
Default Re: Question

That's all dandy, if we're operating under the idea that people test accurately and honestly enough to find their real type, have been exposed to dual relationships before and feel they might be able to achieve one. But (there's always a but) it seems to me that people who read about dualty end up using it like a rulebook to define their lives. "If you're not my dual then it's over, we're doomed, we'll never have a meaninful relationship." "Don't even think about calling me again, you're not my dual." "I must find my dual or I'm destined for years of misery.", and so on and so forth. A bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, don't you think?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 19/01/2006, 05:19 PM
rmcnew's Avatar
rmcnew rmcnew is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 111
Default Re: Question

It does not have anything to do with self-fullfilment, it has to do with how you notice you behave as opposed to how others see your behaviour. That is what the inter-type relationships are about.

Unless of course you disagree that one person may see the world in a completely diffrent light than another.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 19/01/2006, 05:37 PM
Nyx's Avatar
Nyx Nyx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 226
Default Re: Question

Perhaps I'm not explaining what I mean the right way.
I'm not arguing that people are all the same, or that there is no variation between types and how they see the world. What I'm saying is that limiting yourself based entirely on type and dismissing all else is tantamount to blind faith. If you start looking at people as acronyms (She's an ABCD, so it will NEVER work out no matter what I do, because I'm an EFGH) then it seems like instead of using socionics as a tool it begins to actually change the way a person will behave towards other people in a way that will always make relations look the way the person thinks they should - and everything becomes a way of justifying four letter types when that's not the purpose at all.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 19/01/2006, 08:16 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: Question

Nyx, you've made a valid point. It also looks a bit extreme from where I'm sitting. I can imagine a cold rational thinker would probably do exactly what you're saying - reject the inefficient. It even sounds plausible, why eat the soup with a fork or a knife if you can have a spoon. But what if there is no spoon and won't be any spoon for a while? You can either use what you've got or starve to death, right? So what's the problem with that? If you want to die, then it is your choice. But what if there is a spoon and you can reach for it. Why would you want to use something else instead?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 19/01/2006, 09:23 PM
Nyx's Avatar
Nyx Nyx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 226
Default Re: Question

Quote:
Knowing the theory seems to make me a bit more aware, or able to define, what's going on, but it doesn't seem to be the deal-breaker for me. And if anything, haven't you gained by being more open minded toward your dual, whom you probably wouldn't have noticed beforehand?
Of course, personality testing can be a wonderful way to understand the way people around you think and behave. I'm only saying it's not the end-all or cure-all, but there are people who tend to take it to that extreme.

As for the last part, after reading about my type's dual, and having encountered such people in the real world, I see absolutely no appeal. But of course that's just me. I'm sure plenty of dual relationships end up working out fine.

Quote:
Nyx, you've made a valid point. It also looks a bit extreme from where I'm sitting. I can imagine a cold rational thinker would probably do exactly what you're saying - reject the inefficient. It even sounds plausible, why eat the soup with a fork or a knife if you can have a spoon. But what if there is no spoon and won't be any spoon for a while? You can either use what you've got or starve to death, right? So what's the problem with that? If you want to die, then it is your choice. But what if there is a spoon and you can reach for it. Why would you want to use something else instead?
You implied I was rational! Yay! *Insert happy dance*

But to keep to the metaphor, personally I'm not in pursuit of a spoon, even if theoretically there were one within easy reach. My question was more of a theoretical nature. I do understand what you mean, of course, and I have no objection to it: one will tend towards what is easier and more efficient.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 19/01/2006, 10:45 PM
rmcnew's Avatar
rmcnew rmcnew is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 111
Default Re: Question

No one is saying that you can not be involved with someone who you should have a bad relationship with according to socionics intertype theory, but there is such a thing as being informed. I think it should be more about that than anything else.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 20/01/2006, 04:07 AM
Lost Spirit Lost Spirit is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11
Default Re: Question

Quote:
Knowing the theory seems to make me a bit more aware, or able to define, what's going on, but it doesn't seem to be the deal-breaker for me. And if anything, haven't you gained by being more open minded toward your dual, whom you probably wouldn't have noticed beforehand?
This is pretty much how I approach relationships also. When I first learned about MBTI and Socionics I remember trying to make quick decisions about how our future would unfold according to my knowledge of those theories. Now I see that way of thinking as uncharitable toward the other people I know and prefer to use Socionics more as a tool of trying to empathize and understand why the other person could be acting the way they are (for instance why they must see a practical application for everything, have a high need for stimulating experiences, etc.) I believe such a use of socionics is the fairest application of it.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 20/01/2006, 07:51 AM
Marina Marina is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8
Default Re: Question

NYX, I agree with you in the sense that I'm fearful that socionics has caused me to dismiss people because "i know it won't work." However, I know that it really hasn't changed my reaction toward people. When I like people, I pursue them, even if I know it's doomed to fail. (Although I'm a fierce believer in the dual relationship, I was actually considering being in a relationship with my conflicting partner!) I think that since you can never be really certain of someone's type, most people, when given the opportunity, take the risk and engage in relationships. In this way, you figure out the person's type as a result of the interpersonal relationship that's been established. And in that case, you don't even end up liking or disliking the person based on his or her type, but on whether or not you can deal with the relationship between you two.
Knowing the theory seems to make me a bit more aware, or able to define, what's going on, but it doesn't seem to be the deal-breaker for me. And if anything, haven't you gained by being more open minded toward your dual, whom you probably wouldn't have noticed beforehand?
On a personal note: My two closest friends are actually Activity and Mirror, and these relationships were established well before I learned of Socionics. Moreover, my Activity partner and I had thought that from M-B we weren't supposed to like each other, and yet we both believed we had a great relationship (Socionics later validated what we had known all along.)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02/02/2006, 11:45 PM
NoiselessAardvark NoiselessAardvark is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 20
Default Re: Question

I've read that type people try to experience many varied ways of doing something so that they can use their wider range of experiences to better know how to interact in any situation. Couldn't this property combined with knowledge of trait theory be used to acclimate yourself to anyone and "dualize" with them? Couldn't you also do this when the other person is yourself and become entirely self-sufficient? I have used this method to overcome obstacles with interacting with ESFps a great deal and I highly recommend it to anyone who does not have to interact with two people of conflicting personality types on a regular basis or else you may become so differentiated that you will develop mental illness.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 18/02/2006, 04:54 PM
Nyx's Avatar
Nyx Nyx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 226
Default Re: Question

How would this work for non- types who might not be as accomodating to varied experiences?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 19/02/2006, 01:48 AM
MysticSonic MysticSonic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 32
Default Re: Question

"A bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, don't you think?"

I don't think people, or at least the particular portion of the population interested in Socionics, are naive as you think.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 19/02/2006, 02:16 AM
Nyx's Avatar
Nyx Nyx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 226
Default Re: Question

Who said anything about being naive?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 19/02/2006, 02:18 AM
MysticSonic MysticSonic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 32
Default Re: Question

"Who said anything about being naive?"

It's implied as you believe that people are naive enough to formulate such self-fulfilling prophecies, which they are, though it seems people whom would be interested in Socionics would be more fit to avoid such a pitfall.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 SOCIONICS.COM