Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Newbie questions about dual-type theory

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Newbie questions about dual-type theory

    For those people into dual-type, super-socion stuff....Just some basic questions on the behalf of those of us who don't understand it:

    * Are there simple examples of how one can recognize if a behavior is stemming from a person's metabolism type or exertion type? For example, if a person says or does something that points to Te, Ti, or some other IM Element, how do we know whether that's exertion or metabolism?

    * If a person is typed according to classical Socionics, would that be the person's metabolism type, exertion type, or neither one?

    * It seems that Tcaud and Labcoat are now the chief proponents of dual-type theory (any others?). I would be curious if the two of you agree on the dual-type types of various forum members and people in history who have been discussed. Also, are there any notable differences in your views on dual-type theory?

  2. #2
    bibliophile8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ohio, one of those pesky 50 states
    Posts
    174
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    * If a person is typed according to classical Socionics, would that be the person's metabolism type, exertion type, or neither one?
    If I understand correctly from reading tcdaullig's posts, classical socionic type corresponds to the master or metabolism type in the supersocion.

    Please, supersocion theorists, correct me if I am wrong.
    type #33
    but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    It's why you have a mana bar, not a rage bar.

  3. #3
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bibliophile8 View Post
    If I understand correctly from reading tcdaullig's posts, classical socionic type corresponds to the master or metabolism type in the supersocion.
    That's what I understand as well.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are there simple examples of how one can recognize if a behavior is stemming from a person's metabolism type or exertion type?
    No. All behavior is affected by both types. Surely you could 'isolate' behaviors that are exclusively affected by a single of the types under controlled circumstances, but under ordinary circumstances the influence of one can not be detected apart from that of the other. In other words, knowing what ENFp slave type looks like in INTj-ENFp will not tell you enough to make you capable of immediately detecting it in INFp-ENFp.

    If a person is typed according to classical Socionics, would that be the person's metabolism type, exertion type, or neither one?
    Metabolism. (= master)

    It seems that Tcaud and Labcoat are now the chief proponents of dual-type theory (any others?). I would be curious if the two of you agree on the dual-type types of various forum members and people in history who have been discussed. Also, are there any notable differences in your views on dual-type theory?
    I'll have to coordinate with tcaud over the PM about that. Most likely we often agree on certain parts of the dual type of some people, but rarely on the whole of it. For example, while I do not know the whole of your (jonathan) dual-type, it is clear to me that you are a gamma-NT overlooking some feeling type, and I am certain that tcaudilllg agrees.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    No. All behavior is affected by both types. Surely you could 'isolate' behaviors that are exclusively affected by a single of the types under controlled circumstances, but under ordinary circumstances the influence of one can not be detected apart from that of the other. In other words, knowing what ENFp slave type looks like in INTj-ENFp will not tell you enough to make you capable of immediately detecting it in INFp-ENFp.



    Metabolism. (= master)
    While I can see how these two answers can coexist theoretically, don't they seem perhaps contradictory in practice? If all behavior is affected by both types in a way that's difficult or impossible to distinguish, then it should follow that following standard typing methods would likely lead to a typing that's not the master type in some cases.

    For example, suppose a person where INTj-ESTp. Standard typing methods might detect base Ti and substantial expression of Se, leading to a typing of ISTj.

    Of even greater concern to me, though, is that if one can't isolate what part of the behavior is from the "master" and what part is from the "slave," then how can one verify that the theory is correct? How do I picture what a dual type is supposed to look like or even have an idea of what a person's dual-type is if there's no way to isolate the behaviors associated with the dual types? Similarly, how do you know that my master type is Gamma-NT and that my slave type is an ethical type if the behaviors of master and slave are indistinguishable? Or...what kind of controlled circumstances would we need to be able to observe the dual type theory in action?

    Another related question: How do we know that there are only 2 types (master and slave)? Can a master have two slaves? Can a slave have its own slaves? Can there be additional slaves that appear from time to time? And if not, why not?

  6. #6
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    While I can see how these two answers can coexist theoretically, don't they seem perhaps contradictory in practice? If all behavior is affected by both types in a way that's difficult or impossible to distinguish, then it should follow that following standard typing methods would likely lead to a typing that's not the master type in some cases.

    For example, suppose a person where INTj-ESTp. Standard typing methods might detect base Ti and substantial expression of Se, leading to a typing of ISTj.

    Of even greater concern to me, though, is that if one can't isolate what part of the behavior is from the "master" and what part is from the "slave," then how can one verify that the theory is correct? How do I picture what a dual type is supposed to look like or even have an idea of what a person's dual-type is if there's no way to isolate the behaviors associated with the dual types? Similarly, how do you know that my master type is Gamma-NT and that my slave type is an ethical type if the behaviors of master and slave are indistinguishable? Or...what kind of controlled circumstances would we need to be able to observe the dual type theory in action?

    Another related question: How do we know that there are only 2 types (master and slave)? Can a master have two slaves? Can a slave have its own slaves? Can there be additional slaves that appear from time to time? And if not, why not?
    If dual type does exist, which I've been thinking about a lot lately, then I see no reason that people are limited to only a master type and a dual type. Maybe their is infinite levels that people exist in(sort of like dimensions of character) for each possible personality context. Maybe the master type isn't really a master type, but only appears as a master type because of the context of reality that we leave in. Maybe the human mind has infinite possibilities, for infinite possible contexts.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Our minds have limits. Gulenko wrote about this in a paper of his. (but it had an irrelevant title if I recall correctly.)

    Gulenko identifies a three step cycle of awareness: 1) awareness of opposites, 2) awareness of a third option which unites the opposites, and 3) recognition that the third option is in fact. I believe Gulenko was inspired by Jung in this regard. The process dates back centuries, to the age of medieval alchemy, and is described by this phrase: "one becomes two; two becomes three; and out of the third comes the one as the fourth. (the "one" referring to the Self represented by four sides.)

    I wasn't aware of Gulenko's work on this at the time, but I developed the crosstype theory into dual-type theory by means of this very principle. It was just something I naturally moved towards on the basis of logical induction.

    In essence, it's the old idea of a philosopher stone, made modern. It's how Ti works. There is a line from a favorite RPG of mine, where a sorceror who has "found" the formula calls it "the ten billion page codex", saying that the stone does not grant all the information in the world at once; it must be read, and only by means of time can one read. Therefore, reading the stone = evolution of thought in time = increasing intellectual complexity by means of differentiation. The stone is just a symbol for our increasing self-awareness. As for why it happens, I've got a hypothesis, but... let's leave it to the gene hunters. Genes are natural sources of dichotomy, and probably play a role in our development of cognition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    It seems that Tcaud and Labcoat are now the chief proponents of dual-type theory (any others?).
    Ask crazedrat about it.

  8. #8
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Awareness is an assumption, thought in general is an assumption. Everything that goes through your mind, or the shapes that you see are relying on laws that haven't been proven to exist. Its not even provable that there is such thing as laws. There are infinite amount of possibilities. How do you even know that you are existent? All we have to go by is our own perception of things. There is no way to know if our perceptions are accurate. One could say that schizophrenia people are just as likely to be subject to the absolute truth as people that the normal population consider sane. So yes, the mind is limited. That is because we see only finite contexts of existent, when in fact everything is possible(if the idea that everything being possible may not be possible). But it is also possible for the human mind to be connected to infinite contexts, even though we aren't(or might be) right now. Anything is possible. So I was merely suggesting that the human mind might be layered in a way, different perspectives for different contexts.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    If dual type does exist, which I've been thinking about a lot lately, then I see no reason that people are limited to only a master type and a dual type. Maybe their is infinite levels that people exist in(sort of like dimensions of character) for each possible personality context. Maybe the master type isn't really a master type, but only appears as a master type because of the context of reality that we leave in. Maybe the human mind has infinite possibilities, for infinite possible contexts.
    That's actually very close to my view. At last we agree on something.

    When I was at NYC and Rick was explaining his approach to typing, it seemed to me that in some ways the way he was explaining type is more like one's "public face." That's very different from how it's generally thought of on the forum. Rick quoted something from Augusta about how people have enough of each function to get by, but use their strong functions in public situations. The idea is that contrary to what some may think, non--valuing types do enjoy good food. However, the strong types have a way of drawing attention to eating food and such things and leading people in that area, while other types are just quietly enjoying their food.

    The point is, the mind is quite flexible and capable of using all functions; but somehow people's public interactions are far more limited. In my mind, I seem to journey all kinds of places; to people around me, I'm right here and haven't changed.

    Now where this gets interesting is in understanding Socionic-related regularities in people's behavior beyond determination of type (alla the 16 types). If one has a room full of people all of one "type," one will naturally see lots of differences. Some of this may be explained by "subtype" in the sense of different emphasis on the different ego-block functions. Some may also be explained by the fact that people may emphasize their "HA" more or less, or may use their id a little more, etc. I have also thought about how people may have certain secondary "themes"...Could someone be Gamma but with a "tinge" of Beta?

    To me, the mind is like a raw material where different personality "themes" can develop. Slight differences in personality may perhaps be awakened by things that trigger the memory of when these varies "eddies" and so forth developed. In extreme cases (people with multiple personality disorder), there may be multiple personalities that don't connect and have little in common type-wise.

    What Tcaud has done though, is impose a certain rigid structure on how people may "minor" in different types. Unfortunately, I don't understand his theory yet, as I haven't seen a solid enough description for me to test that what I think he might be saying is what he's saying. So it's hard for me to judge.
    Last edited by Jonathan; 12-30-2007 at 04:46 AM.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Our minds have limits.
    The real question is what is the nature of those limits. When you talk about the reality of how there are clearly limits, or hitta talks about how anything is possible, this is all very general philosophical stuff that's nice...but then it all comes back to whether one particular Socionic model is correct in how it characterizes the various limits and freedoms that exist, or if another conception would be better.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well to apply the above logic, the solution would be to postulate a synthesis between the two extremes, and then to break down the synthesis into a new dichotomy.

    The question, as ever, is how to do that.


    @Jonathan:
    Your philosophy sounds constructionist.

    I don't think that either I or labcoat agree that dual-type theory is a "minor" in another type. It's simply (heh, "simply") the way one uses energy. The metabolism/master type is what you perceive; the exertion/slave type is what you do. ...Sometimes I wonder if you perceive the slave as the master, and the master as the slave, given your focus on action and behavior over matters of perception, which I understand information metabolism to be the domain of. Classical socionics/Jung types are about what you are looking at, what you are aware of. Exertion type is about the world which encompasses that, and your activity in it. The distinction is very subtle; the most accurate analogy is one of matter to energy. (though even that has problems.)

    Actually let me offer you the following, which I suspect is a neural correlate to the link between the master and slave types:

    James Kalat, Biological Psychology p. 244
    In the posterior parietal cortex, some neurons respond primarily to visual or somatosensory stimul, others respond mostly to current or future movements, and still others respond to a complicated mixture of the stimulus and the upcoming response. (Shadlen & Newsome, 1996) You might think of the posterior parietal cortex as keeping track of the position of the body relative to the world. (Snyder, Grieve, Brotchie, & Anderson, 1998) Contrast the effects of posterior parietal damage with those of occipital or temporal damage. People with posterior parietal damage can accurately describe what they see, but they have trouble converting their perception into action. Although they can walk toward something they hear, they cannot walk toward something they see, nor can they reach out to grasp something -- even after describing its size, shape, and angle. They seem to know what it is but not where it is. In contrast, people with damage to parts of the occipital or temporal cortex have trouble describing what they see, but they can reach out and pick up objects, and when walking, they step over or go around the objects in their way (Goodale, 1996; Goodale, Milnor, Jakobson, & Carey, 1991) In short, seeing what is different from seeing where, and seeing where is critical for movement.
    Take all of your motor functions, set them into groups of eight based on what information element they are most like, and presume that the same "king of the hill" battle which is going on for your cognition is also going on between your motor functions. That is slave type. Now imagine that the two types are interdependent, and you've got dual-type theory.

    @hitta:
    I've read of many philosophers who suggested that whatever can manage to survive must be operating on a form of truth. Ultimately truth exists apart from oneself, and if one does not conform to it one will be destroyed by it. So to say, truth is that which manages to endure. (yes I know it's more complex than that, it's just all I can offer now.)
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 12-30-2007 at 08:01 AM.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for the explanation. I understand the analogy...still not sure on the application. Perhaps part of the difficulty I have with it is that classical Socionics is intended to explain both input (perception) and output (action). In particular, is generally described in Socionics as being action-oriented. Also, the creative function is often conceived of as a sort of output. Generally descriptions of all IM Elements in Socionics tend to involve both perception and some sorts of action.

    Let me ask you this: How would you apply dual-type theory to literary analysis? Some people, including I think yourself, have attempted to analyze passages of writing via Socionics principles. Would the writing reflect mainly the exertion type because it's output? Or would you detect the metabolism type in it?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    Thanks for the explanation. I understand the analogy...still not sure on the application. Perhaps part of the difficulty I have with it is that classical Socionics is intended to explain both input (perception) and output (action). In particular, is generally described in Socionics as being action-oriented. Also, the creative function is often conceived of as a sort of output. Generally descriptions of all IM Elements in Socionics tend to involve both perception and some sorts of action.

    Let me ask you this: How would you apply dual-type theory to literary analysis? Some people, including I think yourself, have attempted to analyze passages of writing via Socionics principles. Would the writing reflect mainly the exertion type because it's output? Or would you detect the metabolism type in it?
    Yes, but sometimes you just have to see something for what it really is. If a theory is inconsistent at any point, then that is a clear sign it has not been researched effectively.

    The IM half of linguistic processing is that which you are perceiving. (usually at the beginning of a phrase.) The exertion half is the activity of the perceived. Note there is a difference between perceiving activity, and observing it. (perception implies recognition; observation implies focus on the course of an activity.)

    Also, exertion aspects are activities of IM aspect assembly. Ask yourself, "is what I'm noticing an aspect that is already there, or the process of an aspect's construction?"
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 12-31-2007 at 12:09 PM.

  14. #14
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The IM half of linguistic processing is that which you are perceiving. (usually at the beginning of a phrase.) The exertion half is the activity of the perceived. Note there is a difference between perceiving activity, and observing it. (perception implies recognition; observation implies focus on the course of an activity.)
    Do you ever think the reason why you understand slave type in terms of 'activity' and 'energy' is just because you happen to have a dynamic slave type as opposed to a static one....?

    Because both my types are static, and I understand both types in terms of 'inactive' information.

    @hitta:
    I've read of many philosophers who suggested that whatever can manage to survive must be operating on a form of truth. Ultimately truth exists apart from oneself, and if one does not conform to it one will be destroyed by it. So to say, truth is that which manages to endure. (yes I know it's more complex than that, it's just all I can offer now.)
    This is a description of a Result/Rational NT type's philosophy. INTjs and ENTjs believe that the way to find out wether a belief is true is to test it. INTps and ENTps on the other hand believe that to find out the truth you need to start with something undenyably true, and deduce your way to a conclusion.
    Last edited by krieger; 12-31-2007 at 03:35 PM.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    This is a description of a Result/Rational NT type's philosophy. INTjs and ENTjs believe that the way to find out wether a belief is true is to test it. INTps and ENTps on the other hand believe that to find out the truth you need to start with something undenyably true, and deduce your way to a conclusion.
    I thought that at least according to theory, determining truth by testing was supposed to be more related to , and starting out with an undeniable truth and then deducing from it was supposed to be related to . However, if it were really related to result/process, that might explain why people have had a lot of confusion about who is which type.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •