On the Meaning and Goals of Duality

An individual person may have their own considerations regarding the purposes of psychological duality and its benefits for them personally, but nature (that is, evolution) also has its own reasons in this regard, and they are, without question, different. Not the same as those of an individual person. Hence the frequent complaints about dual relations, hence the misunderstandings.

One ILE blogger on the socioforum recently wrote: “Duals cover each other on the vulnerable and role functions, the weak functions. And if a female Dumas DOES NOT WANT to cover a male Don on his weak functions, she is NOT HIS DUAL. That is all. (What the hell are such duals needed for!)”

There is, of course, an understandable human rationale in this phrase: everyone wants their dual to constantly and always willingly help them with their partner’s weak functions. Sometimes this is exactly what happens. But not always. Why? Because nature has its own, different goals, and frankly, it sometimes could not care less about an INDIVIDUAL HUMAN rationale.

SO WHY DID NATURE ITSELF NEED THE DUALITY OF HUMAN PAIRS?

• FIRST, in order to bring together a man and a woman with diametrically opposite genotypes. Why is this very important? From identicals (close genotypes, in practice almost a kind of inbreeding), less viable offspring will be born. This offspring will have a higher probability of coinciding mutations incompatible with life in both homologous chromosomes of the diploid set. Therefore, over thousands of generations, natural selection has developed mechanisms of sexual attraction in people by which a man and a woman of different, dually opposite psychotypes are more strongly attracted to each other — because this also corresponds to their significant genetic dissimilarity, which is favorable for the fate of their future offspring.
  And how is nature to bring together precisely such genetically dissimilar, “dual” people? Very easily. They simply have to feel especially good with each other. And they have to feel good with each other precisely in sex and before sex. What does “good” mean here? It means INTERESTING, PLEASANT. But whether they will then cover each other on their weak functions in their further life together — nature, of course, could not care less about that here (at least, it could not care less within the framework of this very first task, the task of bringing a man and a woman to intercourse).
• SECOND, however, evolutionary natural selection also has another important task. It is not enough to give birth to offspring; they must be nursed and raised. Moreover, among primates (and especially in humans), this is quite a long period of time. And here the duality of a man and a woman in their joint pair finally begins to perform its second role, also very important from the point of view of evolutionary benefits.
  If both parents care for the children, then each person in the dual pair does this in their own way. The ethicist teaches speaking and communication; the logician teaches hunting. The sensoric type will feed them on time; the intuitive type will prudently take care of safety. And here, as we understand, the supplementation of strong and weak functions in the dual pair of parents turns out to be especially useful for the offspring, again creating an evolutionary advantage. But — again, for the offspring! For the offspring, for the children, and not necessarily for the parents themselves (evolution does not consider it especially expedient to smooth the joint existence of a childless pair; it has no spare “money” for that!) It happens, of course, that in a childless marriage the spouses transfer their parental feelings onto each other and care for each other as they would care for their children. But this does not always happen and not with everyone.

While there is love, the mutual incomprehension of functions is not noticeable to dual partners. Foreign functions do not really penetrate consciousness; they murmur pleasantly nearby in the ears, like a sweet little stream. LII listens to how his ESE partner laughs and thinks: “Good Lord, like a silver bell, it makes me want to embrace her!” Love fades, and the same laughter already evokes other reactions: “Good Lord, why is she constantly cackling at every occasion, like a barking dog!” It is even worse with relations between creative functions. ESE nags LII because he again left unwashed dishes in the sink the night before: “Is it pleasant for me, while getting ready for work, to encounter your dishes in the sink every morning?” LII, in turn, is systematically irritated at ESE because she does not hear his intuitive and logical advice and warnings, based on his erudition — for example, concerning the child’s health and education. And so on, and so forth.

About how duality actually manifests in marriage, I think it was well written by the socioforum blogger lenaaa, in response to the ILE-blogger I quoted earlier at the beginning of the post (Socioforum):

“Dual interaction in close relationships gives a feeling of happiness and calm, relaxation. It is pleasant, it is self-sufficient, it can be a life goal as the highest end in itself. If the goals are different, for example success in society, material success, spiritual or inner self-perfection, then other TIMs are needed for that. Duality gives a state of infinity in mutual dissolution into each other; it is like spinning in one place without the possibility of stopping, and it drains both people’s strength and gives no forward movement. A stopping of time.
Duals feel good together because they give each other information from their base functions to the Super-Id. This gives pleasant sensations, but without the dual’s detailed understanding of this information, and at the same time they live as if on parallel planes, not intersecting, not interfering with each other, and therefore not giving grounds for conflicts.

If duals do not need to interact in any way, but only to relax, then all the information directed at their own strong functions, which the dual cannot support in conversation because of the weakness of the corresponding function, they simply invent, supplement. For example, ILE invents that SEI, in conversation with them, supports them in every possible way in Ne and Ti, while SEI thinks that ILE is such a sweet and kind dear in Si and Fe as they want to see them. As long as duals do not collide in reality, but live in their virtual cocoons of adoration, everything is excellent. But when, God forbid, they do collide, only a dual can so mercilessly and painfully press on the weak functions of the partner-dual, which have been opened in trust.

If what you need first of all is to be understood, then a dual will not suit you here. Because a dual will not be able to fully understand you in the matters you are talking about; they speak the opposite language. You speak about logic, they speak about ethics; you speak about intuition, they speak about sensorics; you want to be supported with positive motivation for future victories, since you are a positivist, but your wings are clipped, because SEI is a negativist: SEI celebrates victory only after it really already exists, and before that does not really believe in it. As an extravert, you want to communicate more and more, charging yourself with energy, while SEI, as an introvert, quickly grows tired of this and withdraws, defending themselves. Duals read different books, watch different films, listen to different music; they see different sides of life that have nothing in common with each other.

ILEs speak and listen to words; SEIs speak and listen to emotions. ILEs live in a world of ideas and analysis; SEIs live in a world of feelings and sensations.
SEI does not need very much Ne; SEI can tolerate a little of it, then comes oversaturation and distancing. SEI can absorb somewhat more Ti logic, but it still offends SEI that they can never prove anything to ILE, can never persuade ILE in any way, and therefore SEI gradually begins simply to keep silent and avoid conversations in Ti.

ILE, in turn, finds it unpleasant to speak about Si. ILE believes that they must always be right, and when there is something in which they find themselves in the role of the led party, they try to prove to themselves and others that they do not need it, that they can manage by themselves, although time after time they fail to manage. And the role of the dependent party offends them. Interaction through Fe also does not work, since ILE expresses emotions on their face not as a reaction to something specific, as SEI does, but for some logical reasons of their own — for example, on the grounds that it is “necessary” to express good emotions, that this makes people joyful, and that this is good. Or else ILE expresses their emotions too strongly or too weakly, that is, inappropriately. ILE uses them as a tool for influence, or simply abandons control over them, no longer regulating them. But SEI is tuned to the transmission of meaningful information through the channel of emotions, and is perplexed: what are these strange masks on the dual’s face instead of emotions? And later SEI simply tries not to pay attention.

The combination in ILE of a failure to understand what would seem to be universally known basic Fi rules, with all their simultaneous arrogance in Ti and Se, looks to SEIs like something rather crude and improper. But the desire to correct ILE’s behavior will have no result: ILE will not want to listen to it, and will continue doing everything as they see fit. Why does SEI not perceive such behavior by ILE as unambiguously hostile? Because SEIs can recognize intonations, facial expressions, and postures, and behind ILE’s external, deliberately demonstrative aggressiveness they see weakness and insecurity, from which arises the desire to protect ILE from ILE’s own constant wish to put themselves in an awkward position. ILEs, in theory, are rather kind inside, good-natured, honest, and empathic, but because of the weakness of both ethical functions this can be expressed by them, from SEI’s point of view, rather strangely.

The exchange of information between duals occurs nonverbally through quadral values; it turns out that, speaking about different things and in different ways, they nevertheless somehow converge on the same thing. But it is impossible to speak purposefully about something and at the same time arrive at a common opinion in the way each of them expects from the other. For true mutual understanding, there needs to be at least one common dichotomy: logic–ethics or intuition–sensorics. Or else the mental functions need to coincide in color.

If success in work is needed, then one should look not for a dual, who gives relaxation, but for a TIM that gives collectedness, motivation, and energy. For ILE this is ESE and SLE, LIE. Perhaps also SEE, if there is some mutual reserve of tolerance.
SEI and ILE are incompatible in shared work. They immediately step on each other’s weak functions. They compensate each other’s strengths and intensify each other’s shortcomings. SEI works slowly, but steadily. ILE works quickly, but in bursts.
They nullify each other’s motivation, kill energy, and in the end it becomes impossible to mobilize oneself for work, since this state is immediately perceived by the dual as personally hostile to them, rather than directed toward the shared work.

How can one force a dual to manifest their strong sides for you?
Let us consider this using SEI as an example. SEI manifests Si and Fe from their positive side when SEI feels safe, when SEI is treated well, when SEI feels needed and is not offended, when SEI feels that they are on their own territory. If, in relation to some person, SEI feels pleasant emotions, then SEI takes this person into their close circle and begins to care for them to the extent proportionate to those pleasant emotions. If the person disappoints SEI and the emotions end, then it is not obligatory to care for them, and it is also not necessary to manifest pleasant emotions toward them. That is, the interaction turns out to be bilateral in this way.

Toward complete strangers, SEI may manifest Si and Fe just like that if they have a reserve of strength for it, that is, if SEI feels good. If SEI feels bad, or has no strength, or these strangers do not need it, then there will be no manifestations. SEI conserves their strength; SEI will not impose themselves, and has a sense of tact and appropriateness.
One cannot force SEI to work through their strong functions by coercion; their limiting Se will be triggered. SEI will resist as far as the situation, their capacities, their will, and circumstances allow; SEI will try to leave or will sabotage. SEI does not like conflicts, but also does not like coercion, and may enter into conflict in order to defend themselves or to protect someone, although this is an extreme measure.

It should also be noted that dual pairs tend to become fixated on each other and degrade, losing external connections and opportunities. It is very difficult to break out of this. For the self-development of each of the duals, they need to engage in self-development independently, separate their affairs from the dual’s affairs, and try, as far as possible, not to use the dual’s strong functions, since using the dual’s functions leads to one’s own weak functions ceasing to work altogether. Constant reliance on the dual’s quick solution of problems leads both to dependence on the dual and to insecurity in one’s own abilities and a lowering of self-esteem. Therefore, one should try to expand the circle of external relations, communicate with other people. This brings in energy from outside, gives the possibility of living a real life, and ultimately strengthens the dual relations themselves.”