Alexander Grib (LII) on Relationships and Neurotypology

I want to comment on the comments. "I don’t know a single couple who hasn’t gone through a 'breaking-in' stage." I truly believe that. I believe it because you likely don’t know a single couple who lives according to the method of neurotypology, right? People who are even aware of what socionics, neurotypology, or any kind of typology is. If you don't know any such couples, it makes sense.

And that’s normal, because very few people know about this. The people who have discovered this and have the opportunity to apply it to maximize compatibility are the lucky ones. That is exactly why everyone else has to 'grind' against each other.

I mean, what even is this 'breaking-in' process? In the vast majority of cases where people are at least 50% compatible, it’s seen as an unavoidable process. How do people usually get together? They see each other, a minimal spark occurs, and first, it’s all that reptilian, monkey-brain arousal. People are different: some are more primal, some less. Regardless, the selection first happens based on sexual drive. Only later, after the neurotransmitter haze fades, do people start to see a clearer picture.

And they realize: 'this part isn’t right,' 'that part isn’t right.' 'Damn, why does she do it like that?' 'Why does he do it like this?' 'I see life this way, but she sees it that way.' This is exactly what I was writing about. The thought just crossed my mind, so I wrote it down.

The phenomenon of compatibility itself lies in the fact that it drastically reduces the probability and the 'boiling point' of conflict. The lower the compatibility, the higher the percentage of conflict arising, and the higher the 'temperature' of that conflict will be.

Take two people who met 'somehow,' started dating 'somehow,' and are building a relationship 'somehow.' And on this 'somehow,' with a compatibility of, say, 50% (which is very common—just half)—maybe they are two extroverts, or two 'ethical' emotional types—they start building a relationship, and if just one aspect doesn't fit, that’s minus 25% compatibility. Problems start right there. Just one aspect missing, and the trouble begins.

In the long run, even that 25% of non-compatibility manifests itself quite strongly. What I mean is: 100% full compatibility consists of four aspects where people align: stability level, way of thinking, volume of thinking, and the direction of their attention (extraversion/introversion). If just one aspect doesn't match, it subtracts 25% from that compatibility. And if it doesn't match, it shows up quite intensely over time.

If a person wants to achieve true harmony, it will never happen by definition without—and this is very important—without accounting for the fact that you shouldn't be taking 'damage.' Sure, anyone can 'suck it up' and 'swallow' it, but if you don't want to live like that, it won't work. So people have to 'eat' those 25% that they—or she—don't agree with.

You reach a compromise. And what is a compromise? It’s not a win; it’s dissatisfaction for both sides. It’s commonly believed that compromise is a solution. But look, in this channel, I am the person conveying a specific vision regarding neurotypology and this whole system, so I am speaking on behalf of the 'system.'

A compromise is when neither side wins. It’s when you failed to realize your true quality, failed to release it, to spin it up so that this part of your character could open up at full power. That simply didn't happen because a compromise occurred due to a lack of full compatibility.

Neither you nor she will be able to fully blossom. For example, take two emotional people. Yes, they are emotional, okay, they love each other, everything is great. But what are they deprived of? What is their problem? Two emotional people have a massive problem: they are technically incapable of calmly and thoughtfully breaking a situation down, understanding the truly important connections in a situation, prioritizing actions, or directing attention toward the vital moments of life.

That is what a 'logic' person does, a 'structural' person. An emotional person moves and reacts based on feelings. And when two people react based on feelings, they often fight over elementary things simply because 'I didn't like this' or 'I didn't like that.'

And when it’s minus 25%, then another minus 25%—that’s already half. As a result, people 'grind' against each other for a very long time. But what does that really mean—'grinding for a long time'? It means they are trying to stay together when the system wasn't designed for a balanced life. It’s like two different structures that weren't meant for their parts to fit into each other's grooves. These structures aren't designed for it.

By definition, they are incapable of locking together; therefore, they will always be shaking. They might wrap it in tape, tie it with rope, and try to fasten it somehow, but the structures won't hold. That is the cold, hard essence of it.

Because of this, people try to 'break in'; they grind away parts of themselves by compromising—they erase them entirely. And in all of this, they are irritated. In the long run, this irritation grows. The further it goes, the faster the temperature rises. Every little thing starts to grate.

Compromise is inherently unstable. It also depends on the 'sloping forehead'—if the forehead is sloped, it’s even worse. Much worse. With a sloped forehead, there are no guarantees. That willingness to compromise could fly out the window tomorrow as soon as someone truly dislikes something. Compromise immediately fails as an argument or an agreement.

And then this "you can blame the other person, engage in soul-searching, build a dialogue, your life 'strives' for harmony and love"—that’s all wonderful, of course. But the word 'strives'... everything here depends on your understanding of life. Everyone has a different 'level of soul.' I don’t usually think in those categories, but it’s more about one's worldview.

No matter how you look at it—from the perspective of philosophy, physics, psychology, or other teachings—you can conclude that a lot depends on us. We create our own lives. In other words, these words imply that regardless of psychotype or compatibility, you believe that everything depends on us. That we can do anything. And of course, you can.

You can do anything if you are ready to endure, if you are ready to close your eyes. People are capable of going the distance through compromises by closing their eyes to the fact that you, for example, have a certain quality that the other person doesn't like. They don't like it, right? It’s naturally in you, but they don't like it. If you are ready to suppress that in yourself, then yes. Then everything 'depends on you,' you are in control of your life, and only you. Only you are capable of 'swallowing' and enduring that.

I would be happy to broadcast to everyone, but my thoughts and my position radiate a specific strategy, a vision of... well, not enduring what doesn't need to be endured. Why endure when you can choose the most suitable option in advance? It can be done, and it’s a beautiful phenomenon. A truly wonderful phenomenon—compatibility.

That’s why I immerse myself in this topic and try to understand it this way. And today, this thought came to me: compatibility itself is a gift; it allows people to live this life in spite of the daily domestic grind.

I really often hear people say that 'domestic life' kills. It’s not the domestic life that kills. Not at all. Living together doesn't kill people—that’s nonsense. Living together kills people who are unsuitable for each other. Because it is joint life that shows everything in people as it truly is. They simply see things as they are, and that is what destroys them.

If something isn't working the way it should, it means the system, the construction, is crooked, broken, or unsuitable. It might be whole, but it’s just not a match. Or one system is whole, and the other is crooked. In any case, the system is 'not assemblable.'

So, it would probably be incorrect to say that living together is tedious or hard. You need to be able to 'handle' living your life. Not just dully wasting time or vegetating, but realizing yourself and unlocking your potential.

Any man who hasn't realized his potential is doomed to a crooked family life. Any of them. Enduring, swallowing, resigning, compromising—all because he can't make things happen the way he wants. He just can't. And that is also a core thought I often convey to my male audience.

All these things are interconnected: self-realization, neurotypology, relationships. Sometimes I step away from the topic of relationships—it's not the very first thing on my agenda—but it will never fade into the background because everything is linked.

A man's realization, family, legacy, a happy life—it’s all connected. Who you are, where you found yourself in this life, what you can do, and how much you can do—that will determine all your subsequent moves, including building a family.

And there won't be any 'grinding' there, because you are primarily capable, you found yourself, you know what you need to do and what you love to do. You fully understand your own psyche and how your behavior works. And you are capable of making things work the way they suit you, rather than just settling for whatever you managed to find and then enduring it.