Dual Preferences

[jason_m]

If nature has taught us anything, it's that even in preferences that are innate, there can be some who hold odd preferences. For example, consider sexual preference. There are some who are heterosexual, some who are homosexual, and some who are bisexual. The people who are homosexual and bisexual go against the norm. Also, I can't think of any preference for which the two sides have a fairly large population, and it doesn't have some people preferring many parts of both sides or not preferring any side. Therefore, it seems clear to me that, in Socionics, there will be people who, for example, are equally adept at using both thinking and feeling (or who aren't good at using either).

I'm just wondering, what would the ego, super-ego, id, and super-id structure be like for such a person?

Jason

[Joy]

One can be "good at" any information element, but that doesn't change their functional arrangement. Also, the axes are one of the most fundamental concepts in Socionics. Ni and Se, Ne and Si, Te and Fi, Ti and Fe. Each balances the other out.

[hellothere]

Therefore, it seems clear to me that, in Socionics, there will be people who, for example, are equally adept at using both thinking and feeling (or who aren't good at using either).

I'm just wondering, what would the ego, super-ego, id, and super-id structure be like for such a person?

Jason

i'm not sure, but maybe this is what the 'inbetween quadra' subtypes in the quadra-ring rotation system of subtypes refers to? For example the IJ-Ne, which denotes a point inbetween INFj and INTj. A person who falls closest to this point maybe could be said to have equal strength/weakness in logic and ethics. Or an EP-Ti (inbetween ENTp and ESTp) may have equal strength/weakness in intuitition and sensing. I could be interpreting the system incorrectly though, as for how the IM elements fill Model A in these 'inbetween' types, perhaps FDG or ifmd95 could explain? (since they seem to subscribe to this subtype system)

[xyz]

My preference for my dual?

To be a cool person.

[FDG]

+1 to IFMD95 post

[hellothere]

yeah, thanks ifmd95

does balance in one dichotomy (e.g. the ETp equally strong at sensing and intuition) also mean more severe constrast in another dichotomy (for the ETp, thinking/logic is much stronger and more valued than feeling/ethics)?

[jason_m]

i'm not sure, but maybe this is what the 'inbetween quadra' subtypes in the quadra-ring rotation system of subtypes refers to? For example the IJ-Ne, which denotes a point inbetween INFj and INTj. A person who falls closest to this point maybe could be said to have equal strength/weakness in logic and ethics. Or an EP-Ti (inbetween ENTp and ESTp) may have equal strength/weakness in intuitition and sensing. I could be interpreting the system incorrectly though, as for how the IM elements fill Model A in these 'inbetween' types, perhaps FDG or ifmd95 could explain? (since they seem to subscribe to this subtype system)

This isn't relevant to what you said, but I've noticed that you've taken down your Socionics type from your signature. Are you uncertain that you're an EII? If that's the case, I can understand. Most people have said that I'm an INTj, but I have a hard time relating to most INTj descriptions. If it's the case that you don't think that you're an EII, then what types are you considering?

Jason

[hellothere]

This isn't relevant to what you said, but I've noticed that you've taken down your Socionics type from your signature. Are you uncertain that you're an EII? If that's the case, I can understand. Most people have said that I'm an INTj, but I have a hard time relating to most INTj descriptions. If it's the case that you don't think that you're an EII, then what types are you considering?

Jason

ohh nah I still think EII is the best fit type for me. I removed it from my sig for a couple of unimportant reasons.

For some reason I've found it easier to identify my quadra values rather than my strengths, so I'm more certain about being Delta than anything else. And extroversion (however it is defined) seems a long shot. So other than EII I think perhaps the next most likely type is SLI. Outside of Delta I'd probably consider ILI next, though I think its unlikely. Actually I would consider LII next but I think I have a strong preference for Te/Fi over Fe/Ti (when I first learnt about socionics I thought Gamma was the least likely quadra for me, but after this realisation Gamma has become more likely than Alpha). IEI is the only beta type I would consider, and I did consider it for a while initially, but after observing and interacting with other IEIs on this board, I think there's a clear difference there, enough to say that EII is much more likely than IEI. Anyway thanks for giving me an excuse to talk about myself (and maybe it was useful for you)!

ETA: probably what that babbling reflects most is that I don't think I'll ever be 'certain' of my type, and I don't really have a problem with that.

[tcaudilllg]

If nature has taught us anything, it's that even in preferences that are innate, there can be some who hold odd preferences. For example, consider sexual preference. There are some who are heterosexual, some who are homosexual, and some who are bisexual. The people who are homosexual and bisexual go against the norm. Also, I can't think of any preference for which the two sides have a fairly large population, and it doesn't have some people preferring many parts of both sides or not preferring any side. Therefore, it seems clear to me that, in Socionics, there will be people who, for example, are equally adept at using both thinking and feeling (or who aren't good at using either).

I'm just wondering, what would the ego, super-ego, id, and super-id structure be like for such a person?

Jason

Look up the crosstype theory on Wikisocion. Cross functions are probably impossible, but a person who could rearrange their entire IM order would probably suffer from dissociative identity disorder. One type cannot process another type's information without some level of loss. (though according to Reinin theory, the actual information stream itself experiences no loss at all but actually increases in content and richness).

[crazedrat]

Well.. I think if you could rearrange your IM processes, it would mean that you were thinking in direct adaptation with your surrounding world. Kind of like hippie philosophy "there is only this moment". Where I think of things in my life, and I think about doing them, I would simply be doing them. Etc. And relevent thought processes would flow from reality as a response the current most reasonable arrangement of data in light of a particular goal- and that particular goal would simply be the transformation of data in the name of stability. The person XXXx would be engaging reality in a game of nurturing its integrity. Kind of like jesus. I remember Jung talking about how he thought jesus (the archetype, not the dogma) was an idea of the convergence of beast and mind. He was right on there, that is for sure. I look around at my room.. it is a wreck. This thought process would instead be me getting up and cleaning my room in direct adaptation with reality. I look at the food I am eating, and I think "this is no good for me"... this thought process would instead be "I am going to the store right now to buy some healthy shit". I think to myself "I am lonely"... this thought process would instead be "I am going to seek out company" ... there is no thought you "hold onto", instead you just transfer it into another form where it easily finds dissipation. It is the ideal way to live, .. we should all try to reach closer to it. But even as I say this.. I can't close this chat window. ;l

[tcaudilllg]

Well.. I think if you could rearrange your IM processes, it would mean that you were thinking in direct adaptation with your surrounding world. Kind of like hippie philosophy "there is only this moment". Where I think of things in my life, and I think about doing them, I would simply be doing them. Etc. And relevent thought processes would flow from reality as a response the current most reasonable arrangement of data in light of a particular goal- and that particular goal would simply be the transformation of data in the name of stability. The person XXXx would be engaging reality in a game of nurturing its integrity. Kind of like jesus. I remember Jung talking about how he thought jesus (the archetype, not the dogma) was an idea of the convergence of beast and mind. He was right on there, that is for sure. I look around at my room.. it is a wreck. This thought process would instead be me getting up and cleaning my room in direct adaptation with reality. I look at the food I am eating, and I think "this is no good for me"... this thought process would instead be "I am going to the store right now to buy some healthy shit". I think to myself "I am lonely"... this thought process would instead be "I am going to seek out company" ... there is no thought you "hold onto", instead you just transfer it into another form where it easily finds dissipation. It is the ideal way to live, .. we should all try to reach closer to it. But even as I say this.. I can't close this chat window. ;l

The "this is no good for me" bit seems to suggest subjective aspects dominating over objective aspects.... Oh I think I get it: whatever aspects are encountered end up governing the elements used. I guess they'd have something like a control system -- a consciousness within a consciousness -- governing what aspects were most important. That consciousness need not exist outside... it need only be suggested from without, and passively processed. The person would have no concept of a conserved personality as we reckon such.

[kensi]

The "this is no good for me" bit seems to suggest subjective aspects dominating.etcetc

Are you familiar with the effect on a beneficiary's IM processes ? (eg. between an INTj and ISTp or whichever two such types)

[tcaudilllg]

Are you familiar with the effect on a beneficiary's IM processes ? (eg. between an INTj and ISTp or whichever two such types)

There has been no such detailed study that I know of. Augusta's "Socionics Implies Renin" article is the authoritative assessment of the relations (what little I could get out of it was VERY good), but it's not been translated into english.

[crazedrat]

The "this is no good for me" bit seems to suggest subjective aspects dominating over objective aspects.... Oh I think I get it: whatever aspects are encountered end up governing the elements used. I guess they'd have something like a control system -- a consciousness within a consciousness -- governing what aspects were most important. That consciousness need not exist outside... it need only be suggested from without, and passively processed. The person would have no concept of a conserved personality as we reckon such.

yes. so when you say "they would have dissociative identity disorder".. you are not completely offtrack. dissociative identity disorder implies the collapse of an identity.. and alot of conflict involved with trying to hold onto the identity/ the identity collapsing. there wouldn't be a collapse or a conflict

[kensi]

yes. so when you say "they would have dissociative identity disorder".. you are not completely offtrack. dissociative identity disorder implies the collapse of an identity.. and alot of conflict involved with trying to hold onto the identity/ the identity collapsing. there wouldn't be a collapse or a conflict

So being an INTp....do you have any wild ideas to throw out there for consideration with respect to how Model A would look like for a Dissasociative Identity Disorder Person...perhaps a small example for a particular type..??