Cellmold
Wake, See, Sing, Dance
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2012
- Messages
- 6,266
No, it's not actually tautological.
For example, it provides a simple way that the notion of type compatibility can be tested in the future. If/when we can develop an accurate database of people's types, we can test the idea of compatibility by seeing if people of certain types are predictably more likely to be in relationships, particularly long-term, with people of certain other types.
It also states that choosing a partner who is of a compatible type is generally going to lead to a better, more fulfilling relationship than choosing someone of a type that isn't compatible. The additional mention of complexity implies that we need to take averages, and it's possible for a particular mismatched pairing to be more fulfilling than a well-matched pairing due to other factors.
So, no, not tautological.
The statement I quoted most definitely was, in the logic-based definition (I dislike Wikipedia but still :In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example of a tautology is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)". A less abstract example is "The ball is green or the ball is not green". It is either one or the other - it cannot be both and there are no other possibilities.).
Ironically in expanding your point to make it not tautological, you took it from one definition to the other. Though maybe that isn't entirely fair, since you're not being redundant in a single statement, you simply said the same thing twice i.e. the "no, not tautological" at beginning and end.
This is sly of me, though, as it is missing the broader picture of the discussion.
The point being is if type can even help with relationships, not in the a priori position you've adopted, but in a measurably useful way. I've found no evidence that it can, beyond the placebo effect of influence people are liable to afford it. That's the specious reasoning again.
Regarding the question at hand, I find it strange that anyone wouldn't notice clear patterns in the sort of people they're attracted to/form relationships with. I certainly notice the patterns in my own preferences, and I find it hard to believe any given person doesn't have that phenomenon play out in their own life.
Maybe this will undermine my point and condemn my character to accusations of bias, but I've never noticed any patterns in my attractions. However this is likely because I have never been intimately involved with anyone, romantically or otherwise. Truth is I'm terrified of other people and their motivations, and I'm caught between hoping I'm wrong, but constantly being proven right. That's the never-ending fight between reason and emotion. Emotionally I want to trust others (and those motivations I mentioned are not necessarily consciously engaged with; a big problem) but reasonably I desire a reason to, and that requires evidence, which is sorely lacking. Sadly my sexual drive is not strong enough for the former to override the latter.
People can do a lot of damage both personally and professionally in the pitfalls of intimate social relations, because of this I prefer emotional superficiality, not because I'm scared of the emotional fallout (though this certainly is a cost) but the permanent logistical and reputational fallout that can destroy a life and any future you thought you might once have had.
This isn't just about risk, but a certain type. And I'm not one to take pointless or stupid risks and right now, the social milieu of intimate relationships is all about stupid risks and uneven perspectives. Until that shifts, there seems no good reason, beyond the very understandable and human failing of emotional indulgence, to sacrifice the earned comforts of a lifetime for one moment of very temporary pleasure. It is like a Sisyphean hell of evolutionary impulses.
Sadly a pushover like me (who is working very hard on the issue) would be eaten alive in that kind of social culture. Until it shifts to a new paradigm, perhaps one of wise ignorance and relaxed tensions, there is no place there for me.
As for typology, it just looks like another placeholder to soothe the fears of a neurotic species. But this could just be my projection; what do you think?
PS: I hope I don't come across as a contrarian, I like these back and fourths, because even if I'm proven wrong, all it really means is that I can learn something.